Pi|iliiii(lll()|ii 


tCtOji 


■'liifflntiiwitwiiriwwf'  - 


®t|P  E  B-  HtU  ffitbrarg 

Nnrtlf  (Earnltna  S^tat^ 


This  book  was  presented  by 

Library   of   CJongress 

'Q,H367 
G77 


NORTH 


S00725728  V 


BAI 


ESSAYS  ANl 

T 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  DATE 
INDICATED  BELOW  AND  IS  SUB- 
JECT TO  AN  OVERDUE  FINE  AS 
POSTED  AT  THE  CIRCULATION 
DESK. 


FISHER   PROrES 


■  ■<,        w 


>- 


O^  V. 


NEW    YORK: 
D.     APPLETON    AND    COMPANY, 

549    &    551    BROADWAY. 

1876. 


Enteekd,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1876,  by 

D.  APPLETON  &  COMPANY, 
In  the  OfDce  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


PEEFAOE. 


These  papers  are  now  collected  at  the  request  of 
friends  and  correspondents,  who  think  that  they  may 
be  useful ;  and  two  new  essays  are  added.  Most  of 
the  articles  were  written  as  occasion  called  for  them 
within  the  past  sixteen  years,  and  contributed  to 
various  periodicals,  with  little  thought  of  their  form- 
ing a  series,  and  none  of  ever  bringing  them  together 
into  a  volume,  although  one  of  them  (the  third)  was 
once  reprinted  in  a  pamphlet  form.  It  is,  therefore, 
inevitable  that  there  should  be  considerable  iteration 
in  the  argument,  if  not  in  the  language.  This  could 
not  be  eliminated  except  by  recasting  the  whole, 
which  was  neither  practicable  nor  really  desirable. 
It  is  better  that  they  should  record,  as  they  do,  the 
writer's  freely-expressed  thoughts  upon  the  subject 
at  the  time ;  and  to  many  readers  there  may  be  some 
advantage  in  going  more  than  once,  in  different 
directions,  over  the  same  ground.  If  these  essays 
were  to  be  written  now,  some  things  might  be  differ- 
ently expressed  or  qualified,  but  probably  not  so  as 

158797 


iv  PREFACE. 

to  affect  materiallj  any  important  point.  According- 
ly, tliey  are  here  reprinted  unchanged,  except  by  a 
few  merely  verbal  alterations  made  in  proof-reading, 
and  tlie  striking  out  of  one  or  two  superfluous  or 
immaterial  passages.  A  very  few  additional  notes  or 
references  are  appended. 

To  the  last  article  but  one  a  second  part  is  now 
added,  and  the  more  elaborate  Article  XIII.  is  wholly 
new. 

If  it  be  objected  that  some  of  these  pages  are 
written  in  a  lightness  of  vein  not  quite  congruous 
with  the  gravity  of  the  subject  and  the  seriousness  of 
its  issues,  the  excuse  must  be  that  they  were  written 
with  perfect  freedom,  most  of  them  as  anonymous 
contributions  to  popular  journals,  and  that  an  argu- 
ment may  not  be  the  less  sound  or  an  exposition  less 
effective  for  being  playful.  Some  of  the  essays, 
however,  dealing  with  points  of  speculative  scientific 
interest,  may  redress  the  balance,  and  be  thought 
suflB-ciently  heavy  if  not  solid. 

To  the  objection  likely  to  be  made,  that  they  cover 
only  a  part  of  the  ground,  it  can  only  be  replied  that 
they  dp  not  pretend  to  be  systematic  or  complete. 
They  are  all  essays  relating  in  some  way  or  other  to 
the  subject  which  has  been,  during  these  years,  of 
paramount  interest  to  natm-alists,  and  not  much  less 
so  to  most  thinking  people.     The  first  appeared  be- 


PREFACE.  .      y 

tween  sixteen  and  seventeen  years  ago,  immediately 
after  the  publication  of  Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species 
by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,"  as  a  review  of  that 
volume,  wliicli,  it  was  tben  foreseen,  was  to  initiate  a 
revolution  in  general  scientific  opinion.  Long  before 
our  last  article  was  written,  it  could  be  affirmed  that 
the  general  doctrine  of  the  derivation  of  species  (to 
put  it  comprehensively)  has  prevailed  over  that  of 
specific  creation',  at  least  to  the  extent  of  being  the  re- 
ceived and  presumably  m  some  sense  true  conception. 
Far  from  undertaking  any  general  discussion  of  evo- 
lution, several  even  of  Mr.  Darwin's  writings  have 
not  been  noticed,  and  topics  which  have  been  much 
discussed  elsewhere  are  not  here  adverted  to.  This 
applies  especially  to  what  may  be  called  deductive 
evolution — a  subject  which  lay  beyond  the  writer's 
immediate  scope,  and  to  which  neither  the  bent  of 
his  mind  nor  the  line  of  his  studies  has  fitted  him  to 
do  justice.  If  these  papers  are  useful  at  all,  it  will 
be  as  showing  how  these  new  views  of  our  day  are 
regarded  by^  a  practical  naturalist,  versed  in  one  de- 
partment only  (viz..  Botany),  most  interested  in  their 
bearings  upon  its  special  problems,  one  accustomed  to 
direct  and  close  dealing  with  the  facts  in  hand,  and 
disposed  to  rise  from  them  only  to  the  consideration 
of  those  general  questions  upon  which  they  throw 
or  from  which  they  receive  illustration.    . 


vi  PREFACE. 

Then  as  to  the  natural  theological  questions  which 
(owing  to  circumstances  needless  now  to  be  recalled 
or  explained)  are  here  throughout  brought  into  w^hat 
most  naturalists,  and  some  other  readers,  may  deem 
undue  prominence,  there  are  many  who  may  be  inter- 
ested to  know  how  these  increasingly  prevalent  views 
and  their  tendencies  are  regarded  by  one  who  is  scien- 
tifically, and  in  his  own  fashion,  a  Darwinian,  philo- 
sophically a  convinced  theist,  and  religiously  an  ac- 
ceptor of  the  "  creed  commonly  called  the  Kicene," 
as  the  exponent  of  the  Christian  faith. 

"  Truth  emerges  sooner  from  error  than  from  con- 
fusion," says  Bacon ;  and  clearer  views  than  com- 
monly prevail  upon  the  points  at  issue  regarding 
"  religion  and  science  "  are  still  sufficiently  needed  to 
justify  these  endeavors. 

Botanic  Garden,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  June,  1876. 


C  O  IsT  T  E  IsT  T  S . 


*:(:*  This  Table  of  Contents,  and  the  copious  Index  to  the  volume,  were 
obligingly  prepared  by  the  Eev.  G.  F.  Weight,  of  Andover. 

ARTICLE  I. 

THE    ORIGIN    OF   SPECIES   BY   MEANS    OF   NATURAL    SELECTION. 

PAOJ5 

Views  and  Definitions  of  Species. — How  Darwin's  differs  from  that 
of  Agassiz,  and  from  the  Common  View. — Variation,  its  Causes 
unknown. — Darwin's  Genealogical  Tree. — Darwin  and  Agassiz 
agree  in  the  Capital  j'acts. — Embryology. — Physical  Connec- 
tion of  Species  compatible  with  Intellectual  Connection. — How 
to  prove  Transmutation. — Known  Extent  of  Variation. — Cause 
of  Likeness  unknown. — Artificial  Selection. — Reversion. — In- 
terbreeding.— Natural  Selection. — Classification  tentative. — 
What  Darwin  assumes. — Argument  stated. — How  Natural  Se- 
lection works. — Where  the  Argument  is  weakest. — Objections. 
— Morphology  and  Teleology  harmonized. — Theory  not  athe- 
istical.— Conceivable  Modes  of  Relation  of  God  to  Nature      ,      9 


ARTICLE  II. 

DESIGN    versus   NECESSITY—A    DISCUSSION. 

How  Design  in  Nature  can  be  shown. — Design  not  inconsistent 

with  Indirect  Attainment         ...         .         .         .        .        .62 


viii  CONTENTS. 


ARTICLE  III. 

NATURAL    SELECTION    NOT    INCONSISTENT   WITH   NATURAL   TUEOLOGY. 

PAGE 

Part  I. — Premonitions  of  Darwinism. — A  Proper  Subject  for 
Speculation. — Summary  of  Facts  and  Ideas  suggestive  of  Hy- 
potlieses  of  Derivation         .         .         .         ,         .         .         .     87 

Part  II. — Limitations  of  Theory  conceded  by  Darwin. — What  Dar- 
winism explains. — Geological  Argument  strong  in  the  Tertiary 
Period. — Correspondence  between  Rank  and  Geological  Suc- 
cession.— Difficulties  in  Classification. — Nature  of  Affinity. — 
No  Absolute  Distinction  between  Vegetable  and  Animal  King- 
doms.—  Individuality. — Gradation         .....  104 

Part  III. — Theories  contrasted. — Early  Arguments  against  Darwin- 
ism.— Philosophical  and  Theological  Objections. — Theory  may 
be  thcistic. — Final  Cause  not  excluded. — Cause  of  Variation 
unknown. — Three  Views  of  Efficient  Cause  compatible  with 
Theism. — Agassiz's  Objections  of  a  Philosophical  Nature. — 
Minor  Objections.— Conclusion  .....  129  ■ 


ARTICLE  IV. 

SPECIES  AS  TO  VARIATION,  GEOGRAPHICAL    DISTRIBUTION,  AND   SUCCESSION. 

Alphonse  De  Candolle's  Study  of  the  Oak  Genus. — Variability  of 
the  Species. — Antiquity! — A  Common  Origin  probable. — Dr. 
Falconer  on  the  Common  Origin  of  Elephants. — Variation  and 
Natural  Selection  distinguished. — Saporta  on  the  Gradation  be- 
tween the  Vegetable  Forms  of  the  Cretaceous  and  the  Tertiary. 
— Hypothesis  of  Derivation  more  likely  to  be  favored  by  Bot- 
anists than  by  Zoologists. — Views  of  Agassiz  respcctino;  the 
Origin,  Dispersion,  Variation,  Characteristics,  and  Successive 
Creation  of  Species  contrasted  with  those  of  De  Candolle  and 
others.— -Definition  of  Species. — "Whether  its  Essence  is  in  the 
Likeness  or  in  the  Genealogical  Connection  of  the  Individuals 
composing  a  Species         .         .         .         .         .         .         .178 


CONTENTS.  ix 


ARTICLE  V. 

SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY  :    THE  RELATIONS  OF  NORTH  AMERICAN  TO  NORTH- 
EASTERN  ASIAN   AND   TO   TERTIARY   VEGETATION. 

PAGIT 

Age  and  Size  of  Sequoia. — ^Isolation. — Decadence. — Related  Ge- 
nera.— Former  Distribution.— S.imila»ity  between  the  Flora  of 
Japan  and  that  of  the  United  States,  especially  on  the  Atlantic 
Side. — Former  Glaciation  as  explaining  the  Present  Dispersion 
of  Species. — This  confirmed  by  the  Arctic  Fossil  Flora  of  the 
Tertiary  Ppriod. — Tertiary  Flora  derived  from  the  Preceding 
Cretaceous. — Order  and  Adaptation  in  Organic  Nature  likened 
to  a  Flow. — Order  implies  an  Ordainer         .         .         .         .  205 


ARTICLE  VL 

THE   ATTITUDE    OF   WORKING   NATURALISTS   TOWARD   DARWINISM. 

General  Tendency  to  Acceptance  of  the  Derivative  Hypothesis 
noted. — Lyell,  Owen,  Alphonse  De  Candolle,  Bentham,  Flower, 
Allman. — Dr.  Dawson's  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man  "  exam- 
ined.— Difference  between  Scientific  Men  and  General  Specu- 
lators or  Amateurs  in  the  Use  of  Hypotheses,         .        .        .  236 

ARTICLE  VIL 

EVOLUTION  AND  THEOLOGY. 

Writings  of  Henslow,  Hodges,  and  Le  Conte  examined. — Evolu- 
tion and  Design  compatible. — The  Admission  of  a  System  of 
Nature,  with  Fixed  Laws,  concedes  in  Principle  all  that  the  • 
Doctrine  of  Evolution  requires. — Hypotheses,  Probabilities,  • 
and  Surmises,  not  to  be  decried  by  Theologians,  who  use  them, 
perhaps,  more  freely  and  loosely  than  Naturalists. — Theolo- 
gians risk  too  much  in  the  Defense  of  Untenable  Outposts     .  252 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

"  WHAT   IS   DARWINISM  ?  " 

Dr.  Hodge's  Book  with  this  Title  criticised. — He  declares  that  Dar- 
winism is  Atheism,  yet  its  Founder  a  Theist. — Darwinism 


GONTENTS. 

FAOB 

fouudcd,  however,  upon  Orthodox  Conceptions,  and  opposed, 
not  to  Theism,  but  only  to  Intervention  in  Nature,  while  the 
Key-note  of  Dr.  Hodge's  System  is  Interference, — Views  and 
Writings  of  St.  Clair,  Winchell,  and  Kingsley  adverted  to       .  266 


ARTICLE  IX. 

CHARLES   DARWIN  :    SKETCH   ACCOMPANYING  A   PORTRAIT    IN    "  NATURE." 

Darwin's  Characteristics  and  Work  as  a  Naturalist  compared  with 
those  of  Robert  Brown. — His  Illustration  of  the  Principle  that 
"  Nature  abhors  Close  Fertihzation." — His  Impression  upon 
Natural  History  exceeded  only  by  Linnaeus. — His  Service  in 
restoring  Teleology  to  Natural  History         .         .         .         .  283 

ARTICLE  X. 

INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS. 

Classification  marks  Distinctions  where  Nature  exhibits  Grada- 
tions.— Recovery  of  Forgotten  Knowledge  and  History  of 
what  was  known  of  Dionaea,  Drosera,  a*nd  Sarracenia      .       .289 

ARTICLE  XL 

INSECTIVOROUS   AND   CLIMBING   PLANTS. 

Review  of  Darwin's  Two  Works  upon  these  Subjects. — No  Absolute 
Marks  for  distinguishing  between  Vegetables  and  Animals. — 
New  Observations  upon  the  Sundews  or  Droseras. — Their  Sen- 
sitiveness, Movements,  Discernment  of  the  Presence  and  Ap- 
propriation of  Animal  Matter. — Dionasa,  and  other  Plants  of 
the  same  Order. — Utricularia  and  Pinguicula. — Sarracenia  and 
Nepenthes. — Clknbing  Plants  ;  the  Climbing  effected  through 
Sensitiveness  or  Response  to  External  Impfession  and  Auto- 
matic Movement. — Capacities  inherent  in  Plants  generally, 
and  apparently  of  no  Service  to  them,  developed  and  utilized 
by  those  which  climb. — Natural  Selection  not  a  Complete  Ex- 
planation        .  ........  308 


CONTENTS.  xi 

ARTICLE  XII. 

DURATION   AND   ORIGINATION   OF  RACE   AND   SPECIES. 

PAGE 

Part  I. — Do  Varieties  in  Plants  wear  out,  or  tend  to  wear  out  ? — 
The  Question  considered  in  the  Light  of  Facts,  and  in  that  of 
the  Darwinian  Theory. — Conclusion  that  Races  sexually  propa- 
gated need  not  die  of  Old  Age. — This  Conclusion  inferred 
from  the  Provisions  and  Arrangements  in  Nature  to  secure 
Cross-Fertilization  of  Individuals. — Reference  to  Mr.  Darwin's 
Development  of  this  View         .  .  .  .  .  .388 

Part  II. — Do  Species  wear  out,  and,  if  not,  why  not  ? — Implication 
of  the  Darwinian  Theory  that  Species  are  unlimited  in  Exist- 
ence.— Examination  of  an  Opposite  Doctrine  maintained  by 
Naudin. — Evidence  that  Species  may  die  out  from  Inherent 
Causes  only  indirect  and  inferential  from  Arrangements  to 
secure  Wide  Breeding. — Physiological  Import  of  Sexes. — 
Doubtful  whether  Sexual  Reproduction  with  Wide  Breeding 
is  a  Preventive  or  only  a  Palliative  of  Decrepitude  in  Species. 
— Darwinian  Hypothesis  must  suppose  the  Former         .         .  347 


ARTICLE  XIIL 

evolutionary  teleology. 

The  Opposition  between  lijorphology  and  Teleology  reconciled  by 
Darwinism,  and  the  Latter  reinstated. — Character  of  the  New 
Teleology. — Purpose  and  Design  distinguished. — Man  has  no 
Monopoly  of  the  Latter. — Inference  of  Design  from  Adap- 
tation and  Utility  legitimate  ;  also  in  Hume's  Opinion  irresisti- 
ble.— The  Principle  of  Design,  taken  with  Specific  Creation, 
totally  insufficient  and  largely  inapplicable  ;  but,  taken  with 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Evolution  of  Species  in  Nature,  applicable, 
pertinent,  and,  moreover,  necessary. — ^Illustrations  from  Abor- 
tive Organs,  supposed  Waste  of  Being,  etc. — All  Nature  being 
of  a  piece.  Design  must  either  pervade  or  be  absent  from  the 
Whole. — Its  Absence  not  to  be  inferred  because  the  Events 
take  place  in  Nature. — Illustration  of  the  Nature  and  Prov- 
ince of  Natural  Selection.— It  picks  out.  but  does  not  origi- 


xii  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

natc  Variations ;  these  not  a  Product  of,  but  a  Response  to, 
the  Environment ;  not  physical,  but  physiological. — Adapta- 
tions in  Nature  not  explained  by  Natural  Selection  apart  from 
Design  or  Final  Cause. — ^Absurdity  of  associating  Design  only 
with  Miracle. — "What  is  meant  by  Nature. — The  Tradition  of 
the  DiYiNE  in  Nature,  testified  to  by  Aristotle,  comes  down  to 
our  Day  with  Undiminished  Value 356 

Index 391 


DARWINIANA. 


I. 


the  okigin  of  species  by  means  of  natural 

selection/ 

(AmEEICAN  JOtTKNAL  OF  SCIENCB  AND  AkTS,  MaVCTl,   1S60.) 

This  book  is  already  exciting  mnch  attention. 
Two  American  editions  are  announced,  through  which 
it  will  become  familiar  to  many  of  our  readers,  before 
these  pages  are  issued.  An  abstract  of  the  argument 
— for  "  the  whole  volume  is  one  long  argument,"  as 
the  author  states — is  unnecessary  in  such  a  case ;  and 
it  would  be  difficult  to  give  by  detached  extracts. 
For  the  volume  itself  is  an  abstract,  a  prodromus  of  a 
detailed  work  upon  which  the  author  has  been  labor- 
ing for  twenty  years,  and  which  "  will  take  two  or  three 
more  years  to  complete."  It  is  exceedingly  compact ; 
and  although  useful  summaries  are  appended  to  the 
several  chapters,  and  a  general   recapitulation   con- 

^  "  On  the  Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,  or  the 
Preservation  of  Favored  Races  in  the  Struggle  for  Life,"  by  Charles 
Darwin,  M.  A.,  Fellow  of  the  Royal,  Geological,  Linnsean,  etc.,  Societies, 
Author  of  "  Journal  of  Researches  during  H.  M.  S.  Beagle's  Voyage 
round  the  World."     London :  John  Murray.    1859.    502  pp.,  post  8vo. 

D.  H.  HILL  LIBRARY 
North  Carolina  State  Collega 


10  LARWINIANA. 

tains  the  essence  of  the  whole,  yet  much  of  the  aroma 
escapes  in  the  treble  distillation,  or  is  so  concentrated 
that  the  flavor  is  lost  to  the  general  or  even  to  the 
scientific  reader.  The  volume  itself — ^the  proof -spirit 
— ^is  just  condensed  enough  for.  its  purpose.  It  will 
be  far  more  widely  read,  and  perhaps  will  make 
deeper  impression,  than  the  elaborate  work  might 
have  done,  with  all  its  full  details  of  the  facts  upon 
which  the  author's  sweeping  conclusions  have  been 
grounded.  At  least  it  is  a  more  readable  book  :  but 
all  the.  facts  that  can  be  mustered  in  favor  of  the 
theory  are  still  likely  to  be  needed. 

Who,  upon  a  single  perusal,  shall  pass  judgment 
upon  a  work  like  this,  to  which  twenty  of  the  best 
years  of  the  life  of  a  most  able  naturalist  have  been 
devoted  ?  And  who  among  those  naturalists  who 
hold  a  position  that  entitles  them  to  pronounce  sum- 
marily upon  the  subject,  can  be  expected  to  divest 
himself  for  the  nonce  of  the  influence  of  received  and 
favorite  systems  ?  In  fact,  the  controversy  now  opened 
is  not  likely  to  be  settled  in  an  off-hand  way,  nor 
is  it  desirable  that  it  should  be.  A  spirited  conflict 
among  opinions  of  every  grade  must  ensue,  which — 
to  borrow  an  illustration  from  the  doctrine  of  the  book 
before  us — may  be  likened  to  the  conflict  in  ISTature 
among  races  in  the  struggle  for  life,  which  Mr.  Dar- 
win describes  ;  through  which  the  views  most  favored 
by  facts  will  be  developed  and  tested  by  "  Natural 
Selection,"  the  weaker  ones  be  destroyed  in  the  pro- 
cess, and  the  strongest  in  the  long-run  alone  survive. 

The  duty  of  reviewing  this  volume  in  the  Ameri- 
can Journal  of  Science  would  naturally  devolve  upon 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  H 

the  principal  editor,  whose  wide  observation  and  pro- 
found knowledge  of  various  departments  of  natural 
history,  as  well  as  of  geology,  particularly  qualify  him 
for  the  task.  But  he  has  been  obliged  to  lay  aside 
his  pen,  and  to  seek  in  distant  lands  the  entire  repose 
from  scientific  labor  so  essential  to  the  restoration  of 
his  health— a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished, 
and  confidently  to  be  expected.  Interested  as  Mr. 
Dana  would  be  in  this  volume,  he  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  accept  its  doctrine.  Yiews  so  idealistic  as 
those  upon  which  his  "  Thoughts  upon  Species  "  ^  are 
grounded,  will  not  harmonize  readily  with  a  doctrine 
so  thoroughly  naturalistic  as  that  of  Mr.  Darwin. 
Though  it  is  just  possible  that  one  who  regards  the 
kinds  of  elementary  matter,  such  as  oxygen  and  hy- 
drogen, and  the  definite  compounds  of  these  ele- 
mentary matters,  and  their  compounds  again,  in  the 
mineral  kingdom,  as  constituting  species,  in  the  same 
sense,  fundamentally,  as  that  of  animal  and  vegetable 
species,  might  admit  an  evolution  of  one  species  from 
another  in  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former  case. 

Between  the  doctrines  of  this  volume  and  those  of 
the  other  great  naturalist  whose  name  adorns  the  title- 
page  of  this  journal  [Mr.  Agassiz],  the  widest  diver- 
gence appears.  It  is  interesting  to  contrast  the  two, 
and,  indeed,  is  necessary  to  our  purpose ;  for  this  con- 
trast brings  out  most  prominently,  and  sets  in  strongest 
light  and  shade,  the  main  features  of  the  theory  of  the 
origination  of  species  by  means  of  l^atural  Selection. 

The  ordinary  and  generally-received  view  assumes 
the  independent,  specific  creation  of  each  kind  of  plant 

*  Article  in  this  Journal,  vol.  xxiv.,  p.  305. 


12  DARWmiANA. 

and  animal  in  a  primitive  stock,  wliicli  reproduces  its 
like  from  generation  to  generation,  and  so  continues 
the  species/  Taking  the  idea  of  species  from  tins 
perennial  succession  of  essentially  similar  individuals, 
tke  chain  is  logically  traceable  back  to  a  local  origin  in 
a  single  stock,  a  single  pair,  or  a  single  individual, 
from  wliicb  all  the  individuals  composing  the  species 
have  proceeded  by  natural  generation.  Although  the 
similarity  of  progeny  to  parent  is  fundamental  in  the 
conception  of  species,  yet  the  likeness  is  by  no  means 
absolute ;  all  species  vary  more  or  less,  and  some  vary 
remarkably — partly  from  the  influence  of  altered  cir- 
cumstances, and  j)artly  (and  more  really)  from  un- 
known constitutional  causes  which  altered  conditions 
favor  rather  than  originate.  But  these  variations  are 
supposed  to  be  mere  oscillations  from  a  normal  state, 
and  in  ^N^ature  to  be  limited  if  not  transitory ;  so  that 
the  primordial  differences  between  species  and  species 
at  their  beginning  have  not  been  effaced,  nor  largely 
obscured,  by  blending  through  variation.  Conse- 
quently, whenever  two  reputed  species  are  found  to 
blend  in  l^ature  through  a  series  of  intermediate  forms, 
community  of  origin  is  inferred,  and  all  the  formes, 
however  diverse,  are  held  to  belong  to  one  species. 
Moreover,  since  bisexuality  is  the  rule  in  Nature 
(which  is  practically  carried  out,  in  the  long-run,  far 
more  generally  than  has  been  suspected),  and  the 
heritable  qualities  of  two  distinct  individuals  are  min- 
gled in  the  offspring,  it  is  supposed  that  the  general 

^  "  Species  tot  sunt,  quot  diversas  formas  ab  initio  produxit  Infini- 
tum Ens  ;  quae  formas,  secundum  generationis  inditas  leges,  produxere 
plures,  at  sibi  semper  similes," — Linn.  Phil.  Bot.,  99,  157. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  13 

sterility  of  hybrid  progeny  interposes  an  effectual 
barrier  against  tlie  blending  of  the  original  species 
by  crossing. 

From  this  generally-accepted  view  the  well-known 
theory  of  Agassiz  and  the  recent  one  of  Darwin  diverge 
in  exactly  opposite  directions. 

That  of  Agassiz  differs  fundamentally  from  the 
ordinary  view  only  in  this,  that  it  discards  the  idea  of 
a  common  descent  as  the  real  bond  of  union  among 
the  individuals  of  a  species,  and  also  the  idea  of  a  local 
origin — supposing,  instead,  that  each  species  origi- 
nated simultaneously,  generally  speaking,  over  the 
whole  geographical  area  it  now  occupies  or  has  occu- 
pied, and  in  perhaps  as  many  individuals  as  it  num- 
bered at  any  subsequent  period. 

Mr.  Darwin,  on  the  other  hand,  holds  the  orthodox 
view  of  the  descent  of  all  the  individuals  of  a  species 
not  only  from  a  local  birthplace,  but  from  a  single 
ancestor  or  pair ;  and  that  each  species  has  extended 
and  established  itself,  through  natural  agencies,  wher- 
ever it  could ;  so  that  the  actual  geographical  distri- 
bution of  any  species  is  by  no  means  a  primordial  ar- 
rangement, but  a  natural  result.  He  goes  farther, 
and  this  volume  is  a  protracted  argmnent  intended  to 
prove  that  the  species  we  recognize  have  not  been  in- 
dependently created,  as  such,  but  have  descended,  like 
varieties,  from  other  species.  Yarieties,  on  this  view, 
are  incipient  or  possible  species :  species  are  varieties 
of  a  larger  growth  and  a  wider  and  earlier  divergence 
from  the  parent  stock ;  the  difference  is  one  of  degree, 
not  of  kind. 

The   ordinary  view — rendering  unto   Caesar   the 


14  BARWINIANA. 

things  that  are  Cgesar's — looks  to  natural  agencies  for 
the  actual  distribution  and  perpetuation  of  species,  to 
a  supei-natural  for  their  origin. 

The  theory  of  Agassiz  regards  the  origin  of  species 
and  their  present  general  distribution  over  the  world 
as  equally  primordial,  equally  supernatural;  that  of 
Darwin,  as  equally  derivative,  equally  natural. 

The  theory  of  Agassiz,  referring  as  it  does  the 
phenomena  both  of  origin  and  distribution  directly  to 
the  .Divine  will — thus  removing  the  latter  with  the 
former  out  of  the  domain  of  inductive  science  (m 
which  efficient  cause  is  not  the  first,  but  the  last  word) 
—may  be  said  to  be  theistic  to  excess.  The  contrasted 
theory  is  not  open  to  this  objection.  Studying  the 
facts  and  phenomena  in  reference  to  proximate  causes, 
and  endeavoring  to  trace  back  the  series  of  cause  and 
effect  as  far  as  possible,  Darwin's  aim  and  processes 
are  strictly  scientific,  and  his  endeaV^r,  whether  suc- 
cessful or  futile,  must  be  regarded  as  a  legitimate  at- 
tempt to  extend  the  domain  of  natural  or  physical 
science.  For,  though  it  well  may  be  that  "organic 
forms  have  no  physical  or  secondary  cause,"  yet  this 
can  be  proved  only  indirectly,  by  the  failure  of  every 
attempt  to  refer  the  phenomena  in  question  to  causal 
laws.  But,  however  originated-,  and  whatever -bo 
thought  of  Mr.  Darwin's  arduous  undertaking  in  this 
respect,  it  is  certain  that  plants  and  animals  are  sub- 
ject from  theij^  birth  to  physicaf  influences,  to  which 
they  have  to  accommodate  themselves  as  they  can. 
How "ritefallyTFey''are'^born  to'Trouble,"  and  how 
incessant  and  severe  the  struggle  for  life  generally  is, 
the  present  volume  graphically  describes.     Few  will 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  •     15 

deny  that  sucli  influences  must  liave  gravely  affected 
the  range  and  the  association  of  individuals  and  species 
on  the  earth's  sui'face.  Mr.  Darwin  thinks  that,  acting 
upon  an  inherent  predisposition  to  vary,  they  have  suf- 
ficed even  to  modify  the  species  themselves  and  pro- 
duce the  present  diversity.  Mr.  Agassiz  believes  that 
they  have  not  even  affected  the  geographical  range 
and  the  actual  association  of  species,  still  less  their 
forms ;  but  that  every  adaptation  of  species  to  climate, 
and  of  species  to  species,  is  as  aboriginal,  and  therefore 
as  inexplicable,  as  are  the  organic  forms  themselves. 

Who  shall  decide  between  such  extreme  views  so 
ably  maintained  on  either  hand,  and  say  how  much  of 
truth  there  may  be  in  each  ?  The  present  reviewer 
has  not  the  presumption  to  undertake  such  a  task. 
Having  no  prepossession  in  favor  of  naturalistic  theo- 
ries, but, struck  with  the  eminent  ability  of  Mr.  Dar- 
win's work,  and  charmed  with  its  fairness,  our  hum- 
bler duty  will  be  performed  if,  laying  aside  prejudice 
as  much  as  we  can,  we  shall  succeed  in  giving  a  fair 
account  of  its  method  and  argument,  offering  by  the 
way  a  few  suggestions,  such  as  might  occur  to  any 
naturalist  of  an  inquiring  piind.  An  editorial  charac- 
ter for  this  article  must  in  justice  be  disclaimed.  The 
plural  pronoun  is  employed  not  to  give  editorial 
weight,  but  to  avoid  even  the  appearance  of  egotism, 
and  also  the  circumlocution  which  attends  a  rigorous 
adherence  to  the  impersonal  style. 

We  have  contrasted  these  tw^o  extremely  divergent 
theories,  in  their  broad  statements.  It  must  not  be 
inferred  that  they  have  no  points  nor  ultimate  results 
in  common. 


16  DARWINIANA. 

In  tlie  first  place,  tliey  practically  agree  in  upset- 
ting, each  in  its  own  way,  the  generally-received  defi- 
nition of  species,  and  in  sweeping  away  the  ground  of 
their  objective  existence  in  ^Nature.  The  orthodox 
conception  of  species  is  that  of  lineal  descent :  all  the 
descendants  of  a  common  parent,  and  no  other,  con- 
stitute a  species ;  they  have  a  certain  identity  because 
of  their  descent,  by  which  they  are  supposed  to  be 
recognizable.  So  naturalists  had  a  distinct  idea  of 
what  they  meant  by  the  term  species,  and  a  practical 
rule,  which  was  hardly  the  less  useful  because  difficult 
to  apply  in  many  cases,  and  because  its  application  was 
indirect :  that  is,  the  community  of  origin  had  to  be 
inferred  from  the  likeness ;  such  degree  of  similarity, 
and  such  only,  being  held  to  be  conspecific  as  could 
be  shown  or  reasonably  inferred  to  be  compatible  with 
a  common  origin.  And  the  usual  concurrence  of  the 
whole  body  of  naturalists  (having  the  same  data  be- 
fore them)  as  to  what  forms  are  species  attests  the 
value  of  the  rule,  and  also  indicates  some  real  founda- 
tion for  it  in  Nature.  But  if  species  were  created  in 
numberless  individuals  over  broad  spaces  of  territory, 
these  individuals  are  connected  only  in  idea,  and  spe- 
cies differ  from  varieties  on  the  one  hand,  and  from 
genera,  tribes,  etc.,  on  the  other,  only  in  degree  ;  and 
no  obvious  natural  reason  remains  for  fixing  upon  this 
or  that  degree  as  specific,  at  least  no  natural  standard, 
by  which  the  opinions  of  different  naturalists  may  be 
correlated.  Species  upon  this  view  are  enduring,  but 
subjective  and  ideal.  Any  three  or  more  of  the  hu- 
man races,  for  example,  are  species  or  not  species,  ac- 
cording to  the  bent  of  the  naturalist's  mind.    Darwin's 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  17 

theory  brings  us  the  otlier  way  to  the  same  result.  In 
his  view,  not  only  all  the  individuals  of  a  species  are 
descendants  of  a  common  parent,  but  of  all  the  related 
species  also.  Affinity,  relationship,  all  the  terms  which 
naturalists  use  figuratively  to  express  an  underived, 
unexplained  resemblance  among  species,  have  a  literal 
meaning  upon  Darwin's  system,  which  they  little  sus- 
pected, namely,  that  of  inheritance.  Varieties  are  the 
latest  offshoots  of  the  genealogical  tree  in  "  an  un- 
lineal  "  order  ;  species,  those  of  an  earlier  date,  but  of 
no  definite  distinction  ;  genera,  more  ancient  species, 
and  so  on.  The  human  races,  upon  this  view^,  like- 
wise may  or  may  not  be  species  according  to  the 
notions  of  each  naturalist  as  to  what  differences  are 
specific ;  but,  if  not  species  already,  those  races  that 
last  long  enough  are  sure  to  become  so.  It  is  only  a 
question  of  time. 

How  well  the  simile  of  a  genealogical  tree  illus- 
trates the  main  ideas  of  Darwin's  theory  the  following 
extract  from  the  summary  of  the  fourth  chapter  shows : 

"  It  is  a  truly  wonderful  fact — the  wonder  of  which  we  are 
apt  to  overlook  from  familiarity— that  all  animals  and  all  plants 
throughout  all  time  and  space  should  bcrelated  to  each  other 
in  group  subordinate  to  group,  in  the  manner  which  we  every- 
where behold — namely,  varieties  of  the  same  species  most 
closely  related  together,  species  of  the  same  genus  less  closely 
and  unequally  related  together,  forming  sections  and  sub-genera, 
species  of  distinct  genera  much  less  closely  related,  "and  genera 
related  in  diiferent  degrees,  forming  sub-families,  families,  or- 
ders, sub-classes,  and  classes.  The  several  subordinate  groups 
in  any  class  cannot  be  ranked  in  a  single  file,  but  seem  rather 
to  be  clustered  round  points,  and  these  round  other  points,  and 
so  on  in  almost  endless  cycles.  On  the  view  that  each  species 
has  been  independently  created,  I  can  see  no  explanation  of  this 


18  DARWimANA. 

great  fact  in  the  classification  of  all  organic  beings  ;  but,  to  the 
best  of  my  judgment,  it  is  explained  through  inheritance  and 
the  complex  action  of  natural  selection,  entailing  extinction 
and  divergence  of  character,  as  we  have  seen  illustrated  in  the 
diagram. 

"The  afiinities  of  all  the  beings  of  the  same  class  have  some- 
times'been  represented  by  a  great  tree.  I  believe  this  simile 
largely  speaks  the  truth.  The  green  and  budding  twigs  may 
represent  existing  species;  and  those  produced  during  each 
former  year  may  represent  the  long  succession  of  extinct  spe- 
cies. At  each  period  of  growth  all  the  growing  twigs  have 
tried  to  branch  out  on  all  sides,  and  overtop  and  kill  the  sur- 
rounding twigs  and  branches,  in  the  same  manner  as  species 
and  groups  of  species  have  tried  to  overmaster  other  species  in 
the  great  battle  for  life.  The  limbs  divided  into  great  branches, 
and  these  into  lesser  and  lesser  branches,  were  themselves  once, 
when  the  tree  was  small,  budding  twigs ;  and  this  connection 
of  the  former  and  present  buds  by  ramifying  branches  may  well 
represent  the  classification  of  all  extinct  and  living  species  in 
groups  subordinate  to  groups.  Of  the  many^twigs  which  flour- 
ished when  the  tree  was  a  mere  bush,  only  two  or  three,  now 
grown  into  great  branches,  yet  survive  and  bear  all  the  other 
branches  ;  so  with  the  species  which  lived  during  long-past 
geological  periods,  very  few  now  have  living  and  modified  de- 
scendants. From  the  first  growth  of  the  tree,  many  a  limb  and 
branch  has  decayed  and  dropped  ofi";  and  these  lost  branches 
of  various  sizes  may  represent  those  whole  orders,  families,  and 
genera,  which  have  now  no  living  representatives,  and  which 
are  known  to  us  only  from  having  been  found  in  a  fossil  state. 
As  we  here  and  there  see  a  thin,  straggling  branch  springing 
from  a  fork  low  down  in  a  tree,  and  which  by  some  chance  has 
been  favored  and  is  still  alive  on  its  summit,  so  we  occasionally 
see  an  animal  like  the  Ornithorhynchus  or  Lepidosiren,  which 
in  some  small  degree  connects  by  its  afiinities  two  large  branches 
of  life,  and  which  has  apparently  been  saved  from  fatal  compe- 
tition by  having  inhabited  a  protected  station.  As  buds  give 
rise  by  growth  to  fresh  buds,  and  these,  if  vigorous,  Ijranch  out 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPEGIE8.  19 

and  overtop  on  all  sides  many  a  feebler  brancli,  so  by  genera- 
tion I  believe  it  has  been  with  the  great  Tree  of  Life,  which  fills 
with  its  dead  and  broken  branches  the  crust  of  the  earth,  and 
covers  the  surface  with  its  ever-branching  and  beautiful  ramifi- 
cations." 

It  may  also  be  noted  that  there  is  a  significant  cor- 
respondence between  the  rival  theories  as  to  the  main 
facts  employed.  Apparently  every  capital  fact  in  the 
one  view  is  a  capital  fact  in  the  other.  The  difference 
is  in  the  interpretation.  To  run  the  parallel  ready 
made  to  our  hands :  ^ 

"The  simultaneous  existence  of  the  most  diversified  types 
under  identical  circumstances,  ....  the  repetition  of  similar 
types  under  the  most  diversified  circumstances,  ....  the  unity 
of  plan  in  otherwise  highly-diversified  types  of  animals,  .... 
the  correspondence,  now  generally  known  as  special  homologies, 
in  the  details  of  structure  otherwise  entirely  disconnected,  down 
to  the  most  minute  peculiarities,  ....  the  various  degrees  and 
different  kinds  of  relationship  among  animals  which  (apparently) 
can  have  no  genealogical  connection,  ....  the  simultaneous 
existence  in  the  earliest  geological  periods, .  •.  .  .  of  representa- 
tives of  all  the  great  types  of  the  animal  kingdom,  ....  the 
gradation  based  upon  complications  of  structure  which  may  be 
traced  among  animals  built  upon  the  same  plan ;  the  distribu- 
tion of  some  types  over  the  most  extensive  range  of  surface  of 
the  globe,  while  others  are  limited  to  particular  geographical 
areas,  ....  the  identity  of  structures  of  these  types,  notwith- 
standing their  wide  geographical  distribution,  ....  the  com- 
munity of  structure  in  certain  respects  of  animals  otherwise  en- 
tirely different,  but  living  within  the  same  geographical  area, 
....  the  connection  by  series  of  special  structures  observed 
in  animals  widely  scattered  over  the  surface  of  the  globe,.  .  .  . 
the  definite  relations  in  which  animals  stand  to  the  surrounding 
world,  ....  the  relations  in  which  individuals  of  the  same 

^  Agassiz,  "  Essay  on  Classification  ;  Contributions  to  Natural  His- 
tory," p.  132,  et  seq. 


20  DABWINIANA. 

species  stand  to  one  another,  ....  the  limitation  of  the  range 
of  changes  which  animals  undergo  during  their  growth,  ...  * 
the  return  to  a  definite  norm  of  animals  which  multiply  in  vari- 
ous ways,  ....  the  order  of  succession  of  the  different  types 
of  animals  and  plants  characteristic  of  the  different  geological 
epochs,  ....  the  localization  of  some  types  of  animals  upon 
the  same  points  of  the  surface  of  the  globe  during  several  suc- 
cessive geological  periods,  ....  the  parallelism  between  the 
order  of  succession  of  animals  and  plants  in  geological  times, 
and  the  gradation  among  their  living  representatives,  ....  the 
parallelism  between  the  order  of  succession  of  animals  in  geo- 
logical times  and  the  changes  their  living  representatives  under- 
go during  their  embryological  growth,^  t  •  •  •  t^^  combination 
in  many  extinct  types  of  characters  which  in  later  ages  appear 
disconnected,  in  different  types^  ....  the  parallelism  between 
the  gradation  among  animals  and  the  changes  they  undergo 
during  their  growth,  ....  the  relations  existing  between  these 
different  series  and  the  geographical  distribution  of  animals, 
....  the  connection  of  all  the  known  features  of  Nature  into 
one  system — " 

In  a  word,  the  whole  relations  of  animals,  etc.,  to 
surrounding  Nature  and  to  each  other,  are  regarded 
under  the  one  view  as  ultimate  facts,  or  in  their  ulti- 
mate aspect,  and  interpreted  theologically  ;  under  the 
other  as  complex  facts,  to  be  analyzed  and  interpreted 

^  As  to  this,  Darwin  remarks  that  he  can  only  hope  to  see  the  law 
hereafter  proved  true  (p.  449);  and  p.  338:  "Agassiz  insists  that 
ancient  animals  resemble  to  •  a  certain  extent  the  embryos  of  recent 
animals  of  the  same  classes ;  or  that  the  geological  succession  of  ex- 
tinct forms  is  in  some  degree  parallel  to  the  embryological  development 
of  recent  forms.  I  must  follow  Pictet  and  Huxley  in  thinking  that  the 
truth  of  this  doctrine  is  very  far  from  proved.  Yet  I  fully  expect  to 
see  it  hereafter  confirmed,  at  least  in  regard  to  subordinate  groups, 
which  have  branched  off"  from  each  other  within  comparatively  recent 
times.  For  this  doctrine  of  Agassiz  accords  well  with  the  theory  of 
natui-al  selection." 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  21 

scientifically.  The  one  naturalist,  perhaps  too  largely 
assuming  the  scientifically  unexplained  to  be  inexpli- 
cable, views  the  phenomena  only  in  their  supposed 
relation  to  the  Divine  rnind.  The  other,  naturally 
expecting  many  of  these  phenomena  to  be  resolvable 
imder  investigation,  views  them  in  their  relations  to 
one  another,  and  endeavors  to  explain  them  as  far  as 
he  can  (and  perhaps  farther)  through  natural  causes. 

But  does  the  one  really  exclude  the  other  ?  Does 
the  investigation  of  physical  causes  stand  opposed  to 
the  theological  view  and  the  study  of  the  harmonies 
between  mind  and  [N'ature  ?  More  than  this,  is  it  not 
most  presumable  that  an  intellectual  conception  re- 
alized in  J^ature  would  be  realized  through  natural 
agencies  ?  Mr.  Agassiz  answers  these  questions  afiarm- 
atively  when  he  declares  that  '^  the  task  of  sciencejs 
to  investigate  what  has  been  done^"toTnc[uire  if  pos- 
sible hoio  it  has  teen  done^  rather  than  to  ask  what  is 
possible  for  the  Deity,  since  we  can  hiow  that  onlyhy 
what  actually  exists  /  "  and  also  when  he  exter  ds  the 
argument  for  the  intervention  in  l!Tature  of  a  creative 
mind  to  its  legitimate  application  in  the  inorganic 
world;  w^hich,  he  remarks,  "considered  in  the  same 
light,  would  not  fail  also  to  exhibit  unexpected  evi- 
dence of  thought,  in  the  character  of  the  laws  regulat- 
ing the  chemical  combinations,  the  action  of  physical 
forces,  etc.,  etc."  ^  Mr.  Agassiz,  however,  pronounces 
that  "the  connection  between  the  facts  is  only  intel- 
lectual " — an  opinion  which  the  analogy  of  the  inor- 

*  Op:  cit.,  p.  131. — One  or  two  Bridgewater  Treatises,  and  most; 
modern  works  upon  natural  theology,  should  have  rendered  the  evi-. 
dences  of  thought  in  inorganic  Nature  not  "  unexpected." 
2 


22  DARWimANA. 

ganic  worlclj  just  referred  to,  does  not  confirm,  for 
there  a  material  connection  between  the  facts  is  justly 
held  to  be  consistent  with  an  intellectual — and  which 
the  most  analogous  cases  we  can  think  of  in  the  or- 
ganic world  do  not  favor ;  for  there  is  a  material  con- 
nection between  the  grub,  the  pupa,  and  the  butterfly, 
between  the  tadpole  and  the  frog,  or,  still  better,  be- 
tween those  distinct  animals  which  succeed  each  other 
in  alternate  and  very  dissimilar  generations.  So  that 
mere  analogy  might  rather  suggest  a  natural  connec- 
tion than  the  contrary;  and  the  contrary  cannot  be 
demonstrated  until  the  possibilities  of  Mature  under 
the  Deity  are  fathomed. 

But,  the  intellectual  connection  being  undoubted, 
Mr.  Agassiz  properly  refers  the  whole  to  "  the  agency 
of  Intellect  as  its  first  cause."  In  doing  so,  however, 
he  is  not  supposed  to  be  offering  a  scientific  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomena.  Evidently  he  is  considering 
only  the  ultimate  ivhy,  not  the  proximate  why  or  how. 

ISTow  the  latter  is  just  what  Mr.  Darwin  is  consid- 
ering. He  conceives  of  a  physical  connection  between 
allied  species ;  but  we  suppose  he  does  not  deny  their 
intellectual  connection,  as  related  to  a  supreme  intelli- 
gence. Certainly  we  see  no  reason  why  he  should, 
and  many  reasons  why  he  should  not.  Indeed,  as  we 
contemplate  the  actual  direction  of  investigation  and 
speculation  in  the  physical  and  natm'al  sciences,  we 
dimly  apprehend  a  probable  synthesis  of  these  diver- 
gent theories,  and  in  it  the  ground  for  a  strong  stand 
against  mere  naturalism.  Even  if  the  doctrine  of  the 
origin  of  species  through  natuml  selection  should  pre- 
vail in  our  day,  we  shall  not  despair ;  being  confident 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  23 

that  the  genius  of  an  Agassiz  will  be  found  equal  to  the 
work  of  constructing,  upon  the  mental  and  material 
foundations  combined,  a  theory  of  N^ature  as  theistic 
and  as  scientific  as  that  which  he  has  so  eloquently 
expounded. 

To  conceive  the  possibility  of  ''  the  descent  of 
species  from  species  by  insensibly  fine  gradations" 
during  a  long  course  of  time,  and  to  demonstrate  its 
compatibility  with  a  strictly  theistic  view  of  the  uni- 
verse, is  one  thing ;  to  substantiate  the  theory  itself 
or  show  its  likelihood  is  quite  another  thing.  This 
brings  us  to  consider  what  Darwin's  theory  actually 
isj  and  how  he  supports  it. 

That  the  existing  kinds  of  animals  and  plants,  or 
many  of  them,  may  be  derived  from  other  and  earlier 
kinds,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  is  by  no  means  a  novel 
proposition.  I^ot  to  speak  of  ancient  speculations  of 
the  sort,  it  is  the  well-known  Lamar ckian  theory. 
The  first  difficulty  which  such  theories  meet  with  is 
that  in  the  present  age,  with  all  its  own  and  its  inher- 
ited prejudgments,  the  whole  burden  of  proof  is  nat- 
urally, and  indeed  properly,  laid  upon  the  shoulders 
of  the  propounders ;  and  thus  far  the  burden  has  been 
more  than  they  could  bear.  From  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  substantive  proof  of  specific  creation  is  not 
attainable  ;  but  that  of  derivation  or  transmutation  of 
species  may  be.  He  who  affirms  the  latter  view  is 
bound  to  do  one  or  both  of  two  things  :  1.  Either  to 
assign  real  and  adequate  causes,  the  natural  or  neces- 
sary result  of  which  must  be  to  produce  the  present 
diversity  of  species  and  their  actual  relations ;  or,  2. 
To  show  the  general  conformity  of  the  whole  body  of 


24  DARWINIANA. 

facts  to  sucli  assumption,  and  also  to  adduce  instances 
explicable  by  it  and  inexplicable  by  the  received  view, 
so  perhaps  winning  om-  assent  to  the  doctrine,  through 
its  competency  to  harmonize  all  the  facts,  even  though 
the  cause  of  the  assumed  variation  remain  as  occult  as 
that  of  the  transformation  of  tadpoles  into  frogs,  or 
that  of  Coryne  into  Sarzia. 

The  first  line  of  proof,  successfully  carried  out, 
would  establish  derivation  as  a  true  physical  theory ; 
the  second,  as  a  sufficient  hypothesis. 

Lamarck  mainly  undertook  the  first  line,  in  a 
theory  which  has  been  so  assailed  by  ridicule  that  it 
rarely  receives  the  credit  for  ability  to  which  in  its  day 
it  was  entitled.  But  he  assigned  partly  unreal,  partly 
insufficient  causes ;  and  the  attemj)t  to  account  for  a 
^progressive  change  in  species  through  the  direct  in- 
fluence of  physical  agencies,  and  through  the  appe- 
tencies and  habits  of  animals  reacting  upon  their 
structure,  thus  causing  the  production  and  the  succes- 
sive modification  of  organs,  is  a  conceded  and  total 
failure.  The  shadowy  author  of  the  "  Yestiges  of  the 
Natural  History  of  Creation  "  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have  undertaken  either  line,  in  a  scientific  way.  He 
would  explain  the  whole  progressive  evolution  of  ISTa- 
ture  by  virtue  of  an  inherent  tendency  to  develop- 
ment, thus  giving  us  an  idea  or  a  word  in  place  of  a 
natural  cause,  a  restatement  of  the  proposition  instead 
of  an  explanation.  Mr.  Darwin  attempts  both  lines 
of  proof,  and  in  a  strictly,  scientific  spirit ;  but  the 
stress  falls  mainly  upon  the  first,  for,  as  he  does  assign 
real  causes,  he  is  bound  to  prove  their  adequacy. 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that,  while  all  du-ect 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  25 

proof  of  independent  origination  is  attainable  from 
the  nature  of  tlie  case,  the  overthrow  of  particular 
schemes  of  derivation  has  not  established  the  opposite 
proposition.  The  futility  of '  each  hypothesis  thus  far 
proposed  to  account  for  derivation  may  be  made 
apparent,  or  unanswerable  objections  may  be  urged 
against  it ;  and  each  victory  of  the  kind  may  render 
derivation  more  improbable,  and  therefore  specific 
creation  more  probable,  without  settling  the  question 
either  way.  New  facts,  or  new  arguments  and  a  new 
mode  of  viewing  the  question,  may  some  day  change 
the  whole  aspect  of  the  case.  It  is  with  the  latter 
that  Mr.  Darwin  now  reopens  the  discussion. 

Havino;  conceived  the  idea  that  varieties  are  in- 
cipient  species,  he  is  led  to  study  variation  in  the  field 
where  it  shows  itself  most  strikingly,  and  affords  the 
greatest  facilities  to  investigation.  Thoughtful  natu- 
ralists have  had  increasing  grounds  to  suspect  that 
a  reexamination  of  the  question  of  species  in  zoology 
and  botany,  commencing  with  those  races  which  man 
knows  most  about,  viz.,  the  domesticated  and  culti- 
vated races,  would  be  likely  somewhat  to  modify  the 
received  idea  of  the  entire  fixity  of  species.  This 
field,  rich  with  various  but  unsystematized  stores  of 
knowledge  accumulated  by  cultivators  and  breeders, 
has  been  generally  neglected  by  naturalists,  because 
these  races  are  not  in  a  state  of  nature ;  whereas  they 
deserve  particular  attention  on  this  very  account,  as 
experiments,  or  the  materials  for  experiments,  ready 
to  our  hand.  In  domestication  we  vary  some  of  the 
natural  conditions  of  a  species,  and  thus  learn  experi- 
mentally what  changes  are  within  the  reach  of  vary 


26  DARWINIANA. 

ing  conditions  in  Xatni'e.  TVe  sejDarate  and  protect  a 
favorite  race  against  its  foes  or  its  competitors,  and 
tbns  learn  what  it  miglit  become  if  Katm^e  ever  afford- 
ed it  equal  opportunities.  Even  when,  to  subserve 
human  uses,  we  modify  a  domesticated  race  to  the 
detriment  of  its  native  vigor,  or  to  the  extent  of  prac- 
tical monstrosity,  although  we  secure  forms  which 
would  not  be  originated  and  could  not  be  pei^etuated 
in  free  ISTature,  yet  we  attain  wider  and  juster  views 
of  the  possible  degree  of  variation.  "We  perceive  that 
some  species  are  more  variable  than  others,  but  that 
no  species  subjected  to  the  experiment  persistently 
refuses  to  vary ;  and  that,  when  it  has  once  begun  to 
vary,  its  varieties  are  not  the  less  but  the  more  sub- 
ject to  variation.  "ISTo  case  is  on  record  of  a  variable 
being  ceasing  to  be  variable  under  cultivation."  It 
is  fair  to  conclude,  from  the  observation  of  plants  and 
animals  in  a  wild  as  well  as  domesticated  state,  that 
the  tendency  to  vary  is  general,  and  even  universal. 
Mr.  Darwin  does  "  not  believe  that  vaiiability  is  an 
inherent  and  necessary  contingency,  under  all  circum- 
stances, with  all  organic  beings,  as  some  authors  have 
thought."  1^0  one  supposes  variation  could  occur 
under  all  circumstances  ;  but  the  facts  on  the  whole  ^ 
imply  a  universal  tendency,  ready  to  be  manifested 
under  favorable  circumstances.  In  reply  to  the 
assumption  that  man  has  chosen  for  domestication 
animals  and  plants  having  an  extraordinary  inherent 
tendency  to  vary,  and  likewise  to  withstand  diverse 
climates,  it  is  asked  : 

"  How  could  a  savage  possibly  know,  when  he  first  tamed 
an  animal,  whether  it  would  vary  in  succeeding  generations, 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  27 

and  whether  it  would  endure  other  climates?  Has  the  little 
variability  of  the  ass  or  Guinea-fowl,  or  the  small  power  of  en- 
durance of  warmth  by  the  reindeer,  or  of  cold  by  the  common 
camel,  prevented  their  domestication?  I  cannot  doubt  that  if 
other  animals  and  plants,  equal  in  number  to  our  domesticated 
productions,  and  belonging  to  equally  diverse  classes  and  coun- 
tries, were  taken  from  a  state  of  nature,  and  could  be  made  to 
breed  for  an  equal  number  of  generations  under  domestication, 
they  would  vary  on  an  average  as  largely  as  the  parent  species 
of  our  existing  domesticated  productions  have  varied." 

As  to  amount  of  variation,  there  is  the  common 
remark  of  naturalists  that  the  varieties  of  domesti- 
cated plants  or  animals  often  differ  more  widely  than 
do  the  individuals  of  distinct  species  in  a  wild  state : 
and  even  in  l^ature  the  individuals  of  some  species  are 
known  to  vary  to  a  degree  sensibly  wider  than  that 
which  separates  related  species.  In'  his  instructive 
section  on  the  breeds  of  the  domestic  pigeon,  our  au- 
thor remarks  that  "  at  least  a  score  of  pigeons  might 
be  chosen  which  if  shown  to  an  ornithologist,  and  he 
were  told  that  they  were  wild  birds,  would  certainly 
be  ranked  by  him  as  well-defined  species.  Moreover, 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  ornithologist  would  place 
the  English  carrier,  the  short-faced  tumbler,  the  runt, 
the  barb,  pouter,  and  fantail,  in  the  same  genus  ;  more 
especially  as  in  each  of  these  breeds  several  truly- 
inherited  sub-breeds,  or  species,  as  he  might  have 
called  them,  could  be  shown  him."  That  this  is  not 
a  case  like  that  of  dogs,  in  which  probably  the  blood  of 
more  than  one  species  is  mingled,  Mr.  Darwin  proceeds 
to  show,  adducing  cogent  reasons  for  the  common 
opinion  that  all  have  descended  from  the  wild  rock- 
pigeon.     Then  follow  some  suggestive  remarks : 


28  DARWINIANA. 

"  I  have  discussed  the  probable  origin  of  domestic  pigeons 
■at  some,  yet  quite  insufficient,- length ;  because  when  I  first  T^ept 
pigeons  and  watched  the  several  kinds,  knowing  well  how  true 
they  bred,  I  felt  fully  as  much  difficulty  in  believing  that  they 
could  ever  have  descended  from  a  common  parent  as  any  natu- 
ralist could  in  coming  to  a  similar  conclusion  in  regard  to  many 
species  of  finches,  or  other  large  groups  of  birds,  in  Nature. 
One  circumstance  has  struck  me  much ;  namely,  that  all  the 
breeders  of  the  various  domestic  animals  and  the  cultivators  of 
j)lants,  with  whom  I  have  ever  conversed,, or  whose  treatises  I 
have  read,  are  firmly  convinced  that  the  several  breeds  to  which 
each  has  attended  are  descended  from  so  many  aboriginally  dis- 
tinct species.  Ask,  as  I  have  asked,  a  celebrated  raiser  of  Here- 
ford cattle,  whether  his  cattle  might  not  have  descended  from 
long-horns,  and  he  will  laugh  you  to  scorn.  I  have  never  met  a 
pigeon,  or  poultry,  or  duck,  or  rabbit  fancier,  who  was  not  fully 
convinced  that  each  main  breed  was  descended  from  a  dis- 
tinct species.  Yan  Mons,  in  his  treatise  on  pears  and  apples, 
shows  how  utterly  he  disbelieves  that  the  several  sorts,  for  in- 
stance a  Eibston-pippin  or  Codlin-apple,  could  ever  have  pro- 
ceeded from  the  seeds  of  the  same  tree.  Innumerable  other 
examples  could  be  given.  The  explanation,  I  think,  is  simple: 
from  long-continued  study  they  are  strongly  impressed  with  the 
difierences  between  the  several  races ;  and  though  they  well 
know  that  each  race  varies  slightly,  for  they  win  their  prizes  by 
selecting  such  slight  differences,  yet  they  ignore  all  general 
arguments,  and  refuse  to  sum  up  in  their  minds  slight  diff*er- 
ences  accumulated  during  many  successive  generations.  May 
not  those  naturalists  who,  knowing  far  less  of  the  laws  of  in- 
heritance than  does  the  breeder,  and  knowing  no  more  than  he 
does  of  the  intermediate  links  in  the  long  lines  of  descent,  yet 
admit  that  many  of  our  domestic  races  have  descended  from  the 
same  parents — may  they  not  learn  a  lesson  of  caution,  when 
they  deride  the  idea  of  species  in  a  state  of  nature  being  lineal 
descendants  of  other  species  ?  " 

The  actual  causes  of  variation  are  unknown.  Mr. 
Darwin  favors  the  opinion  of  tlie  late  Mr.  Kniglit,  the 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  29 

great  pliilosoplier  of  liorticulture,  that  variability  under 
domestication  is  somehow  connected  with  excess  of 
food.  He  regards  the  unknown  cause  as  acting  chiefly 
upon  the  reproductive  system  of  the  parents,  which 
system,  judging  from  the  effect  of  confinement  or  cul- 
tivation upon  its  functions,  he  concludes  to  be  more 
susceptible  than  any  other  to  the  action  of  changed  con- 
ditions of  life.  The  tendency  to  vary  certainly  appears 
to  be  much  stronger  under  domestication  than  in  free 
J^ature.  But  we  are  not  sure  that  the  greater  variable- 
ness of  cultivated  races  is  not  mainly  owing  to  the 
far  greater  opportunities  for  manifestation  and  accu- 
mulation— a  view  seemingly  all  the  more  favorable  to 
Mr.  Darwin's  theory.  The  actual  amount  of  certain 
changes,  such  as  size  or  abundance  of  fruit,  size  of 
udder,  stands  of  course  in  obvious  relation  to  supply 
of  food. 

Really,  we  no  more  know  the  reason  why  the  pro- 
geny occasionally  deviates  from  the  parent  than  we  do 
why  it  usually  resembles  it.  Though  the  laws  and 
conditions  governing  variation  are  known  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  those  governing  inheritance  are  appar- 
ently inscrutable.  "  Perhaps,"  Darwin  remarks,  '^  the 
correct  way  of  viewing  the  whole  subject  would  be,  to 
look  at  the  inheritance  of  every  character  whatever  as 
the  rule,  and  non-inheritance  as  the  anomaly."  This, 
from  general  and  obvious  considerations,  we  have  long 
been  accustomed  to  do.  ]lS^ow,  as  exceptional  instances 
are  expected  to  be  capable  of  explanation,  while  ulti- 
mate laws  are  not,  it  is  quite  possible  that  variation 
may  be  accounted  for,  while  the  great  primary  law  of 
inheritance  remains  a  mysterious  fact. 


30  DARWimANA. 

The  common  proposition  is,  that  sjyecies  Teproduce 
their  like  I  this  is  a  sort  of  general  inference,,  only  a 
degree  closer  to  fact  than  the  statement  that  genera 
reproduce  their  like.  The  true  proposition,  the  fact  in- 
capable of  further  analysis,  is,  that  individuals  repro- 
duce their  like — that  characteristics  are  inheritable. 
So  varieties,  or  deviations,  once  originated,  are  perpetu- 
able,  like  species.  Not  so  likely  to  be  perpetuated,  at 
the  outset;  for  the  new  form  tends  to  resemble  a 
grandparent  and  a  long  line  of  sunilar  ancestors,  as 
well  as  to  resemble  its  immediate  progenitors.  Two 
forces  which  coincide  in  the  ordinary  case,  where  the 
offspring  resembles  its  parent,  act  in  different  direc- 
tions when  it  does  not  and  it  is  uncertain  which  will 
prevail.  If  the  remoter  but  very  potent  ancestral  in- 
fluence predominates,  the  variation  disappears  with 
the  life  of  the  individual.  If  that  of  the  immediate 
j)arent — ^feebler  no  doubt,  but  closer — the  variety  sur- 
vives in  the  offspring ;  whose  progeny  now  has  a  re- 
doubled tendency  to  produce  its  own  like ;  whose  pro- 
geny again  is  almost  sure  to  produce  its  like,  since  it 
is  much  the  same  whether  it  takes  after  its  mother  or 
its  grandmother.     . 

In  this  way  races  arise,  which  under  favorable  con- 
ditions may  be  as  hereditary  as  species.  In  following 
these  indications,  watching  opportunities,  and  breed- 
ing only  from  those,  individuals  which  vaiy  most  in  a 
desirable  direction,  man  leads  the  course  of  variation 
as  he  leads  a  streamlet — apparently  at  will,  but  never 
against  the  force  of  gravitation — to  a  long  distance 
from  its  source,  and  makes  it  more  subservient  to  his 
use   or  fancy.     He  unconsciously  strengthens  those 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  31 

variations  wliicli  lie  prizes  when  lie  plants  tlie  seed  of 
a  favorite  fruit,  preserves  a  favorite  domestic  animal, 
drowns  tlie  uglier  kittens  of  a  litter,  and  allows  only 
the  handsomest  or  the  best  mousers  to  propagate.  Still 
more,  by  methodical  selection,  in  recent  times  almost 
marvelous  results  have  been  produced  in  new  breeds 
of  cattle,  sheep,  and  poultry,  and  new  varieties  of  fruit 
of  greater  and  greater  size  or  excellence. 

It  is  said  that  all  domestic  varieties,  if  left  to  run 
wild,  would  revert  to  their  aboriginal  stocks.  Proba- 
bly they  would  wherever  various  races  of  one  species 
were  left  to  commingle.  At  least  the  abnormal  or 
exaggerated  characteristics  induced  by  high  feeding,  or 
high  cultivation  and  prolonged  close  breeding,  would 
promptly  disappear;  and  the  surviving  stock  would 
soon  blend  into  a  homogeneous  result  (in  a  way  pres- 
ently explained),  which  would  naturally  be  taken  for 
the  original  form ;  but  we  could  seldom  know  if  it 
were  so.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  result 
would  be  the  same  if  the  races  ran  wild  each  in  a  sepa- 
rate region.  Dr.  Hooker  doubts  if  there  is  a  true  re- 
version in  the  case  of  plants.  Mr.  Darwin's  observa- 
tions rather  favor  it  in  the  animal  kingdom.  With 
mingled  races  reversion  seems  well  made  out  in  the 
case  of  pigeons.  The  common  opinion  apon  this  sub- 
ject therefore  probably  has  some  foundation.  But 
even  if  we  regard  varieties  as  oscillations  around  a 
primitive  centre  or  type,  still  it  appears  from  the 
readiness  with  which  such  varieties  originate  that  a 
certain  amount  of  disturbance  would  carry  them  be- 
yond the  influence  of  the  primordial  attraction,  where 
they  may  become  new  centres  of  variation. 


32  DARWINIANA. 

Some  suppose  that  races  cannot  be  perpetuated 
indefinitely  even  by  keeping  up  the  conditions  mider 
wliicli  they  were  fixed;  but  the  high  antiquity  of 
several,  and  the  actual  fixity  of  many  of  them,  nega- 
tive this  assumption.  "  To  assert  that  we  could  not 
breed  our  cart  and  race  horses,  long  and  short  homed 
cattle,  and  poultry  of  various  breeds,  for  almost  an 
infinite  number  of  generations,  would  be  opposed  to 
all  experience." 

Why  varieties  develop  so  readily  and  deviate  so 
widely  under  domestication,  while  they  are  apparently 
so  rare  or  so  transient  in  free  Nature,  may  easily  be 
shown.  In  K"ature,  even  with  hermaphrodite  plants, 
there  is  a  vast  amount  of  cross-fertilization  among 
various  individuals  of  the  same  species.  The  inevi- 
table result  of  this  (as  was  long  ago  explained  in  this 
Journal  ^)  is  to  repress  variation,  to  keep  the  mass  of 
a  species  comparatively  homogeneous  over  any  area 
in  which  it  abounds  in  individuals.  Starting  from  a 
suggestion  of  the  late  Mr.  Knight,  now  so  familiar, 
that  close  interbreeding  diminishes  vigor  and  fertili- 
ty ;^  and  perceiving  that  bisexuality  is  ever  aimed  at 
in  Nature — being  attained  physiologically  in  numer- 
ous cases  where  it  is  not  structm^ally — Mr.  Darwin 
has  worked  out  the  subject  in  detail,  and  shown  how 
general  is  the  concurrence,  either  habitual  or  occasional, 
of  two  hermaphrodite  individuals  in  the  reproduction 
of  their  kind ;  and  has  drawn  the  philosophical  inf  er- 

1  Yolume  xvii.  (2),  1854,  p.  13. 

^  AVe  suspect  that  this  is  not  an  ultimate  fact,  but  a  natural  conse- 
quence of  inheritance — the  inheritance  of  disease  or  of  tendency  to  dis- 
ease, which  close  interbreeding  perpetuates  and  accumulates,  but  wide 
breeding  may  neutralize  or  eliminate. 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  33 

encG  tliat  probably  no  organic  being  self -fertilizes  in- 
definitely ;  but  tbat  a  cross  witli  another  individual  is 
occasionally — perhaps  at  very  long  intervals — indis- 
pensable. AYe  refer  the  reader  to  the  section  on  the 
intercrossing  of  individuals  (pp.  96-101),  and  also  to  an 
article  in  the  Gardeners^  Chronicle  a  year  and  a  half 
ago,  for  the  details  of  a  very  interesting  contribution 
to  science,  irrespective  of  theory. 

In  domestication,  this  intercrossing  may  be  pre- 
vented ;  and  in  this  prevention  lies  the  art  of  pro- 
ducing varieties.  But  "  the  art  itseK  islSTatm-e,"  since 
the  whole  art  consists  in  allowing  the  most  universal 
of  all  natural  tendencies  in  organic  things  (inheritance) 
to  operate  uncontrolled  by  other  and  obviously  inci- 
dental tendencies.  No  new  power,  no  artificial  force, 
is  brought  into  play  either  by  separating  the  stock  of 
a  desirable  variety  so  as  to  prevent  mixture,  or  by 
selecting  for  breeders  those  individuals  which  most 
largely  partake  of  the  pecularities  for  which  the  breed 
is  valued.^ 

We  see  everywhere  around  us  the  remarkable 
results  which  ]N"ature  may  be  said  to  have  brought 
about  under  artificial  selection  and  separation.  Could 
she  accomplish  similar  results  when  left  to  herself  ? 
Variations  might  begin,  we  know  they  do  begin,  in  a 
wild  state.  But  would  any  of  them  be  preserved  and 
carried  to  an  equal  degree  of  deviation  ?  Is  there  any- 
thing in  l^ature  which  in  the  long-run  may  answer  to 

^  The  rules  and  processes  of  breeders  of  animals,  and  their  results, 
are  so  familiar  that  they  need  not  be  particularized.  Less  is  popularly 
known  about  the  production  of  vegetable  races.  We  refer  our  readers 
back  to  this  Journal,  vol.  xxvii.,  pp.  440-442  (May,  1859),  for  an  ab- 
stract of  the  papers  of  M.  Vilmorin  upon  this  subject. 


34  DARWimANA. 

artificial  selection?    Mr.  Darwin  thinks  that  there  is; 
and  Naticral  Selection  is  the  key-note  of  his  discourse. 

As  a  preliminary,  he  has  a  short  chapter  to  show 
that  there  is  variation  in  IN^atui'e,  and  therefore  some- 
thing for  natural  selection  to  act  upon.  He  readily 
shows  that  such  mere  variations  as  may  be  directly 
referred  to  physical  conditions  (like  the  depauperation 
of  plants  in  a  sterile  soil,  or  their  dwarfing  as  they 
approach  an  Alpine  summit,  the  thicker  fur  of  an  ani- 
mal from  far  northward,  etc.),  and  also  those  indi- 
vidual differences  which  we  everywhere  recognize  but 
do  not  pretend  to  account  for,  are  not  separable  by  any 
assignable  line  from  more  strongly-marked  varieties ; 
likewise  that  there  is  no  clear  demarkation  between 
the  latter  and  sub-species,  or  varieties  of  the  higest  grade 
(distinguished  from  species  not  by  any  known  incon- 
stancy, but  by  the  supposed  lower  importance  of  their 
characteristics) ;  nor  between  these  and  recognized 
species.  "  These  differences  blend  into  each  other  in 
an  insensible  series,  and  the  series  impresses  the  mind 
with  an  idea  of  an  actual  passage." 

This  gradation  from  species  downward  is  well  made 
out.  To  carry  it  one. step  farther  upward,  our  author 
presents  in  a  strong  light  the  differences  which  prevail 
among  naturalists  as  to  what  forms  should  be  admit- 
ted to  the  rank  of  species.  Some  genera  (and  these 
in  some^  countries)  give  rise  to  far  more  discrepancy 
than  others;  and  it  is  concluded  that  the  large  or 
dominant  genera  are  usually  the  most  variable.  In  a 
flora  so  small  as  the  British,  182  plants,  generally 
reckoned  as  varieties,  have  been  ranked  by  some  bot- 
anists as  species.     Selecting  the  British  genera  which 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  35 

include  the  most  polymorphous  forms,  it  appears  that 
Babington's  Flora  gives  them  251  species,  Bentham's 
only  112,  a  difference  of  139  doubtful  forms.  These 
are  nearly  the  extreme  views,  but  they  are  the  views  of 
two  most  capable  and  most  experienced  judges,  in  re- 
spect to  one  of  the  best-known  floras  of  the  world.  The 
fact  is  suggestive,  that  the  best-known  countries  fm'- 
.nish  the  greatest  number  of  such  doubtful  cases.  Illus- 
trations of  this  kind  may  be  multiplied  to  a  great  ex- 
tent. They  make  it  plain  that,  whether  species  in 
l!Tature  are  aboriginal  and  definite  or  not,  our  practical 
conclusions  about  them,  as  embodied  in  systematic 
works,  are  not  facts  but  judgments,  and  largely  fal- 
lible judgments. 

How  much  of  the  actual  coincidence  of  authorities 
is  owing  to  imperfect  or  restricted  observation,  and 
to  one  naturalist's  adopting  the  conclusions  of  another 
without  independent  observation,  this  is  not  the  place 
to  consider.  It  is  our  impression  that  species  of  ani- 
mals are  more  definitely  marked  than  those  of  plants ; 
this  may  arise  from  our  somewhat  extended  acquaint- 
ance with  the  latter,  and  our  ignorance  of  the  former. 
But  we  are  constrained  by  our  experience  to  admit 
the  strong  likelihood,  in  botany,  that  varieties  on  the 
one  hand,  and  what  are  called  closely-related  species 
on  the  other,  do  not  differ  except  in  degree.  When- 
ever this  wider  difference  separating  the  latter  can  be 
spanned  by  intermediate  forms,  as  it  sometimes  is,  no 
botanist  long  resists  the  inevitable  conclusion.  When- 
ever, therefore,  this  wider  difference  can  be  shown  to 
be  compatible  with  community  of  origin,  and  explained 
through  natural  selection  or  in  any  other  way,  we  are 


36  DAEWINIANA. 

ready  to  adopt  tlie  probable  conclusion ;  and  we  see 
beforehand  liow  strikingly  tlie  actual  geograpliical 
association  of  related  species  favors  tlie  broader  view. 
Whetber  we  sbould  continue  to  regard  the  forms  in 
question  as  distinct  species,  depends  upon  wbat  mean- 
ing we  sliall  finally  attach  to  that  term ;  and  that  de- 
pends upon  how  far  the  doctrine  of  derivation  can  be 
carried  back  and  how  well  it  can  be  supported. 

In  applying  his  principle  of  natural  selection  to 
the  work  in  liand,  Mr.  Darwin  assumes,  as  we  have 
seen :  1.  Some  variabihty  of  animals  and  plants  in 
nature ;  2.  The  absence  of  any  definite  distinction  be- 
tween slight  variations,  and  varieties  of  the  highest 
grade  ;  3.  The  fact  that  naturalists  do  not  practically 
agree,  and  do  not  increasingly  tend  to  agree,  as  to  what 
forms  are  species  and  what  are  strong  varieties,  thus 
rendering  it  probable  that  there  may  be  no  essential 
and  original  difference,  or  no  possibility  of  ascertain- 
ing it,  at  least  in  many  cases ;  also,  4.  That  the  most 
flourishing  and  dominant  species  of  the  larger  genera 
on  an  average  vary  most  (a  proposition  which  can  be 
substantiated  only  by  extensive  comparisons,  the  de- 
tails of  which  are  not  given) ;  and,  5.  That  in  large 
genera  the  species  are  apt  to  be  closely  but  unecjually 
allied  together,  forming  little  clusters  round  certain 
species — ^just  such  clusters  as  would  be  formed  if  we 
suppose  their  members  once  to  have  been  satellites  or 
varieties  of  a  central  or  parent  species,  but  to  have 
attained  at  length  a  wider  divergence  and  a  specific 
character.  The  fact  of  such  association  is  undeniable ; 
and  the  use  w^hich  Mr.  Darwin  makes  of  it  seems  fair 
and  natural. 


TEE  OBIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  37 

The  gist  of  Mr.  Darwin's  work  is  to  sliow  tliat 
sucli  varieties  are  gradually  diverged  into  species 
and  genera  tlirougli  natural  selection  1  tliat  natm'al 
selection  is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  struggle  for 
existence  which  all  living  things  are  engaged  in ;  and 
that  this  struggle  is  an  unavoidable  consequence  of 
several  natural  causes,  but  mainly  of  the  high  rate  at 
which  all  organic  beings  tend  to  increase. 

Cui'iously  enough,  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  is  grounded 
upon  the  doctrine  of  Malthus  and  the  doctrine  of 
Hobbes.  The  elder  DeCandolle  had  conceived  the 
idea  of  the  struggle  for  existence,  and,  in  a  passage 
which  would  have  delighted  the  cynical  philosopher 
of  Malmesbury,  had  declared  that  all  ISTature  is  at  war, 
one  organism  with  another  or  with  external  ISTature ; 
and  Lyell  and  Herbert  had  made  considerable  use  of 
it.  But  Hobbes  in  his  theory  of  society,  and  Darwin 
in  his  theory  of  natural  history,  alone  have  built  their 
systems  upon  it.  However  moralists  and  political 
economists  may  regard  these  doctrines  in  their  original 
application  to  human  society  and  the  relation  of  popu- 
lation to  subsistence,  their  thorough  applicability  to 
the  great  society  of  the  organic  world  in  general  is 
now  undeniable.  And  to  Mr.  Darwin  belon^'s  the 
credit  of  making  this  extended  application,  and  of 
working  out  the  immensely  diversified  results  with 
rare  sagacity  and  untiring  patience.  He  has  brought 
to  view  real  causes  which  have  been  largely  operative 
in  the  establishment  of  the  actual  association  and  geo- 
graphical distribution  of  plants  and  animals.  In  this 
he  must  be  allowed  to  have  made  a  very  important 
contribution  to  an  interesting  department  of  science, 


38  DARWINIANA. 

even  if  his  theory  fails  in  the  endeavor  to  explain  the 
origin  or  diversity  of  species. 

"Nothing  is  easier,"  says  our  author,  "than  to  admit  in 
words  the  truth  of  the  universal  struggle  for  life,  or  more  diffi- 
cult— at  least  I  have  found  it  so — than  constantly  to  bear  this 
conclusion  in  mind.  Yet,  unless  it  be  thoroughly  ingrained  in 
the  mind,  I  am  convinced  that  the  whole  economy  of  Nature, 
with  every  fact  on  distribution,  rarity,  abundance,  extinction, 
and  variation,  will  be  dimly  seen  or  quite  misunderstood.  We 
behold  the  face  of  Nature  bright  with  gladness,  we  often  see 
superabundance  of  food  ;  we  do  not  see,  or  we  forget,  that  the 
birds  which  are  idly  singing  round  us  mostly  live  on  insects  or 
seeds,  and  are  thus  constantly  destroying  life;  or  we  forget  how 
largely  these  songsters,  or  their  eggs,  or  their  nestlings,  are  de- 
stroyed by  birds  and  beasts  of  prey;  we  do  not  always  bear  in 
mind  that,  though  food  may  be  now  superabundant,  it  is  not  so 
at  all  seasons  of  each  recurring  year." — (p.  62.) 

"There  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  tliat  every  organic  being 
naturally  increases  at  so  high  a  rate  that,  if  not  destroyed,  the 
earth  would  soon  be  covered  by  the  progeny  of  a  single  pair. 
Even  slow-breeding  man  has  doubled  in  twenty-five  years,  and 
at  this  rate,  in  a  few  thousand  years,  there  would  literally  not 
be  standing-room  for  his  progeny.  Linnaeus  has  calculated  that 
if  an  annual  plant  produced  only  two  seeds — and  there  is  no 
plant  so  unproductive  as  this — and  their  seedlings  next  year  pro- 
duced two,  and  so  on,  then  in  twenty  years  there  would  be  a 
million  plants.  The  elephant  is  reckoned  to  be  the  slow^est 
breeder  of  all  known  animals,  and  I  have  taken  some  pains  to 
estimate  its  probable  minimum  rate  of  natural  increase ;  it  will 
be  under  the  mark  to  assume  that  it  breeds  when  thirty  years 
old,  and  goes  on  breeding  till  ninety  years  old,  bringing  forth 
three  pairs  of  young  in  this  interval ;  if  this  be  so,  at  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century  there  would  be  alive  fifteen  million  elephants, 
descended  from  the  first  pair. 

"  But  we  have  better  evidence  on  this  subject  than  mere 
theoretical  calculations,  namely,  the  numerous  recorded  cases  of 
the  astonishingly  rapid  increase  of  various  animals  in  a  state  of 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES..  39 

nature,  "when  circumstances  have  been  favorable  to  tbem  dur- 
ing two  or  three  following  seasons.  Still  more  striking  is  the 
evidence  from  our  domestic  animals  of  many  kinds  which  have 
run  wild  in  several  parts  of  the  world ;  if  the  statements  of  the 
rate  of  increase  of  slow-breeding  cattle  and  horses  in  South 
America,  and  latterly  in  Australia,  had  not  been  well  authenti- 
cated, they  would  have  been  quite  incredible.  So  it  is  with  plants : 
cases  could  be  given  of  introduced  plants  which  have  become 
common  throughout  whole  islands  in  a  period  of  less  than  ten 
years.  Several  of  the  plants  now  most  numerous  over  the  wide 
plains  of  La  Plata,  clothing  square  leagues  of  surface  almost  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  other  plants,  have  been  introduced  from 
Europe ;  and  there  are  plants  which  now  range  in  India,  as  I 
hear  from  Dr.  Falconer,  from  Cape  Comorin  to  the  Himalaya, 
which  have  been  imported  from  America  since  its  discovery. 
In  such  cases,  and  endless  instances  could  be  given,  no  one  sup- 
poses that  the  fertility  of  these  animals  or  plants  has  been  sud- 
denly and  temporarily  increased  in  any  sensible  degree.  The 
obvious  explanation  is,  that  the  conditions  of  life  have  been  very 
favorable,  and  that  there  has  consequently  been  less  destruction 
of  the  old  and  young,  and  that  nearly  all  the  young  have  been 
enabled  to  breed.  In  such  cases  the  geometrical  ratio  of  in- 
crease, the  result  of  which  never  fails  to  be  surprising,  simply 
explains  the  extraordinarily  rapid  increase  and  wide  diffusion  of 
naturalized  productions  in  their  new  homes." — (pp.  64,  Go.) 

"All  plants  and  animals  are  tending  to  increase  at  a  geo- 
metrical ratio;  all  would  most  rapidly  stock  any  station  in 
which  they  could  anyhow  exist ;  the  increase  must  be  checked 
by  destruction  at  some  period  of  life." — (p.  65.) 

The  difference  between  tlie  most  and  the  least  pro- 
lific species  is  of  no  account : 

"  The  condor  lays  a  couple  of  eggs,  and  the  ostrich  a  score; 
and  yet  in  the  same  country  the  condor  may  be  the  more  numer- 
ous of  the  two.  The  Fulmar  petrel  lays  but  one  Qgg^  yet  it  is 
believed  to  be  the  most  numerous  bird  in  the  world." — (p.  68.) 

*'  The  amount  of  food  gives  the  extreme  limit  to  which  each 


40  DARWmiARA. 

« 

species  can  increase  ;  but  very  frequently  it  is  not  the  obtaining 
of  food,  but  the  serving  as  prey  to  other  animals,  which  de- 
termines the  average  numbers  of  species." — (p.  68.) 

"  Climate  plays  an  important  part  in  determining  the  average 
numbers  of  a  species,  and  periodical  seasons  of  extreme  cold  or 
drought  I  believe  to  be  the  most  effective  of  all  checks.  I 
estimated  that  the  winter  of  1854-'55  destroyed  four-fifths  of 
the  birds  in  my  own  grounds;  and  this  is  a  tremendous  destruc- 
tion, when  we  remember  that  ten  per  cent,  is  an  extraordinarily 
severe  mortality  from  epidemics  with  man.  The  action  of 
climate  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  quite  independent  of  the 
struggle  for  existence ;  but,  in  so  far  as  climate  chiefly  acts  in 
reducing  food,  it  brings  on  the  most  severe  struggle  between  the 
individuals,  whether  of  the  same  or  of  distinct  species,  which 
subsist  on  the  same  kind  of  food.  Even  when  climate,  for  in- 
stance extreme  cold,  acts  directly,  it  will  be  the  least  vigorous, 
or  those  which  have  got  least  food  through  the  advancing  winter, 
which  will  suffer  most.  When  we  travel  from  south  to  north, 
or  from  a  damp  region  to  a  dry,  we  invariably  see  some  species 
gradually  getting  rarer  and  rarer,  and  finally  disappearing ;  and, 
the  change  of  climate  being  conspicuous,  we  are  tempted  to  at- 
tribute the  whole  effect  to  its  direct  action.  But  this  is  a  very 
false  view ;  we  forget  that  each  species,  even  where  it  most 
abounds,  is  constantly  suffering  enormous  destruction  at  some 
period  of  its  life,  from  enemies  or  from  competitors  for  the  same 
place  and  food;  and  if  these  enemies  or  competitors  be  in  the 
least  degree  favored  by  any  slight  change  of  climate,  they  will 
increase  in  numbers,  and,  as  each  area  is  already  stocked  with 
inhabitants,  the  other  species  will  decrease.  "When  we  travel 
southward  and  see  a  species  decreasing  in  numbers,  we  may  feel 
sure  that  the  cause  lies  quite  as  much  in  other  species  being 
favored  as  in  this  one  being  hurt.  So  it  is  when  we  travel 
northward,  but  in  a  somewhat  lesser  degree,  for  the  number  oi 
species  of  all  kinds,  and  therefore  of  competitors,  decreases 
northward;  hence,  in  going  northward,  or  in  ascending  a 
mountain,  we  far  oftener  meet  with  stunted  forms,  due  to  the 
directly  injurious  action  of  climate,  than  we  do  in  proceeding 


THE  ORiam  OF  SPECIES.  41 

southward  or  in  descending  a  mountain.  "When  we  reach  the 
arctic  regions,  or  snow-capped  summits,  or  absolute  deserts,  the 
struggle  for  life  is  almost  exclusively  with  the  elements. 

"That  climate  acts  in  main  part  indirectly  by  favoring  other 
species,  we  may  clearly  see  in  the  prodigious  number  of  plants 
in  our  gardens  which  can  perfectly  well  endure  our  climate,  but 
which  never  become  naturalized,  for  they  cannot  compete  with 
our  native  plants,  nor  resist  destruction  by  our  native  animals." 
—(pp.  68,  69.) 

After  an  instructive  instance  in  wliich  "  cattle  ab- 
solutely determine  the  existence  of  tlie  Scotch  fir," 
we  are  referred  to  cases  in  which  insects  determine  the 
existence  of  cattle : 

"  Perhaps  Paraguay  offers  the  most  curious  instance  of  this; 
for  here  neither  cattle,  nor  horses,  nor  dogs,  have  ever  run 
wild,  though  they  swarm  southward  and  northward  in.  a  feral 
state;  and  Azara  and  Eengger  have  shown  that  this  is  caused 
by  the  greater  number  in  Paraguay  of  a  certain  fly,  which  lays 
its  eggs  in  the  navels  of  these  animals  when  first  born.  The  in- 
crease of  these  flies,  numerous  as  they  are,  must  be  habitually 
checked  by  some  means,  probably  by  birds.  Hence,  if  certain 
insectivorous  birds  (whose  numbers  are  probably  regulated  by 
hawks  or  beasts  of  prey)  were  to  increase  in  Paraguay,  the  flies 
would  decrease — then  cattle  and  horses  would  become  feral, 
and  this  would  certainly  greatly  alter  (as  indeed  I  have  observed 
in  parts  of  South  America)  the  vegetation ;  this,  again,  would, 
largely  affect  the  insects ;  and  this,  as  we  have  just  seen  in 
Staffordshire,  the  insectivorous  birds,  and  so  onward  in  ever- 
increasing  circles  of  complexity.  "We  began  this  series  by  in- 
sectivorous birds,  and  we  had  ended  with  them.  ISTot  that  in 
Nature  the  relations  can  ever  be  as  simple  as  this.  Battle  within 
battle  must  ever  be  recurring  with  varying  success ;  and  yet  in 
the  long-run  the  forces  are  so  nicely  balanced  that  the  face  of 
Nature  remains  uniform  for  long  periods  of  time,  though  as- 
suredly the  merest  trifle  would  often  give "  the  victory  to  one 
organic  being  over  another.    Nevertheless,  so  profound  is  our 


42  DARWINIANA. 

ignorance,  and  so  high  our  presumption,  that  we  marvel  when 
we  hear  of  the  extinction  of  an  organic  being ;  and  as  we  do  not 
see  the  cause,  we  invoke  cataclysms  to  desolate  the  world,  or 
invent  laws  on  the  duration  of  the  forms  of  life!"— (pp.  72,  73.) 
"  When  we  look  at  the  plants  and  bushes  clothing  an  en- 
tangled bank,  we  are  tempted  to  attribute  their  proportional 
numbers  and  kinds  to  what  we  call  chance.  But  how  false  a 
view  is  this !  Every  one  has  heard  that  when  an  American 
forest  is  cut  down,  a  very  diiferent  vegetation  springs  up ;  but 
it  has  been  observed  that  the  trees  now  growing  on  the  ancient 
Indian  mounds,  in  the  Southern  United  States,  display  the  same 
beautiful  diversity  and  proportion  of  kinds  as  in  the  surround- 
ing virgin  forests.  What  a  struggle  between  the  several  kinds 
of  trees  must  here  have  gone  on  during  long  centuries,  each 
annually  scattering  its  seeds  by  the  thousand;  what  war  be- 
tween insect  and  insect — between  insects,  snails,  and  other 
animals,  with  birds  and  beasts  of  prey — all  striving  to  increase, 
and  all  feeding  on  each  other  or  on  the  trees,  or  their  seeds  and 
seedlings,  or  on  the  other  plants  which  first  clothed  the  ground 
and  thus  checked  the  growth  of  the  trees !  Throw  up  a  hand- 
ful of  feathers,  and  all  must  fall  to  the  ground  according 
to  definite  laws ;  but  how  simple  is  this  problem  compared 
to  the  action  and  reaction  of  the  innumerable  plants  and  ani- 
mals which  have  determined,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  the 
proportional  numbers  and  kinds  of  trees  now  growing  on  the 
old  Indian  ruins !  " — (pp.  74,  75.) 

.  For  reasons  obvious  upon  reflection,  tlie  competi- 
tion is  often,  if  not  generally,  most  severe  betwen 
nearly  related  species  when  they  are  in  contact,  so 
that  one  drives  the  other  before  it,  as  the  Hanoverian 
the  old  English  rat,  the  small  Asiatic  cockroach  in 
Russia,  its  greater  congener,  etc.  And  this,  when  duly 
considered,  explains  many  curious  results ;  such,  for 
instance,  as  the  considerable  number  of  different  gen- 
era of  plants  and  animals  which  are  generally  found 
to  inhabit  any  limited  area. 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  43 

"The  truth  of  the  principle  that  the  greatest  amount  of  life 
can  be  supported  by  great  diversification  of  structure  is  seen 
under  many  natural  circumstances.  In  an  extremely  small  area, 
especially  if  freely  open  to  immigration,  and  where  the  contest 
between  individual  and  individual  must  be  severe,  we  always 
find  great  diversity  in  its  inhabitants.  For  instance,  I  found 
that  a  piece  of  turf,  three  feet  by  four  in  size,  which  had  been 
exposed  for  many  years  to  exactly  the  same  conditions,  sup- 
ported twenty  species  of  plants,  and  these  belonged  to  eighteen 
genera,  and  to  eight  orders,  which  showed  how  much  these 
plants  differed  from  each  other.  So  it  is  with  the  plants  and 
insects  on  small  and  uniform  islets ;  and  so  in  small  ponds  of 
fresh  water.  Farmers  find  that  they  can  raise  most  food  by  a 
rotation  of  plants  belonging  to  the  most  difi'erent  orders  ;  Nature 
follows  what  may  be  called  a  simultaneous  rotation.  Most  of 
the  animals  and  plants  which  live  close  round  any  small  piece  of 
ground  could  live  on  it  (supposing  it  not  to  be  in  any  way  pe- 
culiar in  its  nature),  and  may  be  said  to  be  striving  to  the  utmost 
to  live  there ;  but  it  is  seen  that,  where  they  come  into  the 
closest  competition  with  each  other,  the  advantages  of  diversi- 
fication of  structure,  with  the  accompanying  difierences  of  habit 
and  constitution,  determine  that  the  inhabitants,  which  thus 
jostle  each  other  most  closely,  shall,  as  a  general  rule,  belong  to 
what  we  call  different  genera  and  orders." — (p.  114.) 

The  abundance  of  some  forms,  tlie  rarity  and  final 
extinction  of  many  others,  and  the  consequent  diver- 
gence of  character  or  increase  of  difference  among  the 
surviving  representatives,  are  other  consequences.  As 
favored  forms  increase,  the  less  favored  must  dimin- 
ish in  number,  for  there  is  not  room  for  all ;  and  the 
slightest  advantage,  at  first  probably  inappreciable  to 
human  observation,  must  decide  which  shall  prevail 
and  which  must  perish,  or  be  driven  to  another  and 
for  it  more  favorable  locality. 

We  cannot  do  justice  to  the  interesting  chapter 


44  DARWINIANA. 

upon  natural  selection  by  separated  extracts.  The 
following  must  serve  to  sliow  how  the  principle  is  sup- 
posed to  work : 

"  If  during  the  long  course  of  ages,  and  under  varying  condi- 
tions of  life,  organic  beings  vary  at  all  in  the  several  parts  of 
their  organization,  and  1  think  this  cannot  be  disputed ;  if  there 
be,  owing  to  the  high  geometrical  powers  of  increase  of  each 
species,  at  some  age,  season,  or  year,  a  severe  struggle  for  life, 
and  this  certainly  cannot  be  disputed :  then,  considering  the 
infinite  complexity  of  the  relations  of  all  organic  beings  to  each 
other  and  to  their  conditions  of  existence,  causing  an  infinite  di- 
versity in  structure,  constitution,  and  habits,  to  be  advantageous 
to  them,  I  think  it  would  be  a  most  extraordinary  fact  if  no 
variation  ever  had  occurred  useful  to  each  being's  own  welfare, 
in  the  same  way  as  so  many  variations  have  occurred  useful  to 
man.  But  if  variations  useful  to  any  organic  being  do  occur, 
assuredly  individuals  thus  characterized  will  have  the  best 
chance  of  being  preserved  in  the  struggle  for  life ;  and  from  the 
strong  principle  of  inheritance  they  will  tend  to  produce  off- 
spring similarly  characterized.  This  principle  of  preservation 
I  have  called,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  Natural  Selection." — (pp. 
126,  127.) 

"  In  order  to  make  it  clear  how,  as  I  believe,  natural  selec- 
tion acts,  I  must  beg  permission  to  give  one  or  two  imaginary 
illustrations.  Let  us  take  the  case  of  a  wolf,  which  preys  on 
various  animals,  securing  some  by  craft,  some  by  strength,  and 
some  by  fleetness  ;  and  let  us  suppose  that  the  fleetest  prey,  a 
deer  for  instance,  had  from  any  change  in  the  country  increased 
in  numbers,  or  that  other  prey  had  decreased  in  numbers, 
during  that  season  of  the  year  when  the  wolf  is  hardest  pressed 
for  food.  I  can  under  such  circumstances  see  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  the  swiftest  and  slimmest  wolves  would  have  the 
best  chance  of  surviving,  and  so  be  preserved  or  selected — pro- 
vided always  that  they  retained  strength  to  master  their  prey 
at  this  or  at  some  other  period  of  the  year,  when  they  might  be 
compelled  to  prey  on  other  animals.  I  can  see  no  more  reason 
to  doubt  this  than  that  man  can  improve  the  fleetness  of  his 


TEE  OEIGm  OF  SPECIES.  45 

greyhounds  by  careful  and  methodical  selection,  or  by  that  un- 
conscious selection  which  results  from  each  man  trying  to  keep 
the  best  dogs  without  any  thought  of  modifying  the  breed. 

"Even  without  any  change  in  the  proportional  numbers  of 
the  animals  on  which  our  wolf  preyed,  a  cub  might  be  born 
with  an  innate  tendency  to  pursue  certain  kinds  of  prey.  Nor 
can  this  be  thought  very  improbable;  for  we  often  observe 
great  differences  in  the  natural  tendencies  of  our  domestic  ani- 
mals: one  cat,  for  instance,  taking  to  catching  rats,  another 
mice ;  one  cat,  according  to  llr.  St.  John,  bringing  home  winged 
game,  another  hares  or  rabbits,  and  another  hunting  on  marshy 
ground,  and  almost  nightly  catching  woodcocks  or  snipes.  The 
tendency  to  catch  rats  rather  than  mice  is  known  to  be  inher- 
ited. Now,  if  any  slight  innate  change  of  habit  or  of  structure 
benefited  an  individual  wolf,  it  would  have  the  best  chance  of 
surviving  and  of  leaving  offspring.  Some  of  its  young  would 
probably  inherit  the  same  habits  or  structure,  and  by  the  repe- 
tition of  this  process  a  new  variety  might  be  formed  which- 
would  either  supplant  or  coexist  with  the  parent-form  of  wolf. 
Or,  again,  the  wolves  inhabiting  a  mountainous  district,  and 
those  frequenting  the  lowlands,  would  naturally  be  forced  to  hunt 
different  prey ;  and  from  a  continued  preservation  of  the  indi- 
viduals best  fitted  for  the  two  sites,  two  varieties  might  slowly 
be  formed.  These  varieties  would  cross  and  blend  where  tliey 
met;  but  to  this  subject  of  intercrossing  we  shall  soon  have  to 
return.  I  may  add  that,  according  to  Mr.  Pierce,  there  are  two 
varieties  of  the  wolf  inhabiting  the  Catskill  Mountains  in  the 
United  States,  one  with  a  light  greyhound-like  form,  which  pur- 
sues deer,  and  the  other  more  bulky,  with  shorter  legs,  which 
more  frequently  attacks  the  shepherd's  flock." — (pp.  90,  91.) 

We  eke  out  tlie  illustration  here  with  a  counterpart 
instance,  yiz.,  the  remark  of  Dr.  Bachman  that  "  the 
deer  that  reside  permanently  in  the  swamps  of  Caro- 
lina are  taller  and  longer-legged  than  those  in  the 
higher  grounds."  ^ 

*  "  Quadrupeds  of  America,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  239. 
3 


46  DARWINIAITA. 

The  limits  allotted  to  this  article  are  nearly  reached, 
jet  only  four  of  the  fourteen  chapters  of  the  volume 
have  been  touched.  These,  however,  contain  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  theory,  and  most  of 
those  applications  of  it  which  are  capable  of  something 
like  verij6.cation,  relating  as  they  do  to  the  phenomena 
now  occurring.  Some  of  our  extracts  also  show  how 
these  principles  are  thought  to  have  operated  through 
the  long  lapse  of  the  ages.  *  The  chapters  from  the 
sixth  to  the  ninth  inclusive  are  designed  to  obviate 
difficulties  and  objections,  "  some  of  them  so  grave 
that  to  tliis  day,"  the  author  frankly  says,  he  "  can 
never  reflect  on  them  without  being  staggered."  We 
do  not  wonder  at  it.  After  drawing  what  comfort 
he  can  from  "  the  imperfection  of  the  geological  rec- 
ord "  (Chapter  IX.),  which  we  suspect  is  scarcely  exag- 
gerated, the  author  considers  the  geological  succession 
of  organic  beings  (Chapter  X.),  to  see  whether  they  bet- 
ter accord  with  the  common  view  of  the  immutability 
of  species,  or  with  that  of  their  slow  and  gradual 
modification.  Geologists  must  settle  that  question. 
Then  follow  two  most  interesting  and  able  chapters 
on  the  geographical  distribution  of  plants  and  animals, 
the  summary  of  which  we  should  be  glad  to  cite ;  then 
a  fitting  chapter  upon  classification,  morphology,  em- 
bryology, etc.,  as  viewed  in  the  light  of  this  theory, 
closes  the  argument ;  the  fourteenth  chapter  being  a 
recapitulation. 

The  interest  for  the  general  reader  heightens  as  the 
author  advances  on  his  perilous  way  and  grapples 
manfully  with  the  most  formidable  difficulties. 

To  account,  upon  these  principles,  for  the  gradual 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  47 

elimiDation  and  segregation  of  nearly  allied  forms — 
such  as  varieties,  sub-species,  and  closely-related  or  rep- 
resentative species — also  in  a  general  way  for  their  geo- 
graphical association  and  present  range,  is  compara- 
tively easy,  is  apparently  within  the  bounds  of  possi- 
bility. Could  we  stop  here  we  should  be  fairly  con- 
tented. But,  to  complete  the  system,  to  carry  out  the 
principles  to  their  ultimate  conclusion,  and  to  explain 
by  them  many  facts  in  geographical  distribution  which 
would  still  remain  anomalous,  Mr.  Darwin  is  equally 
bound  to  account  for  the  formation  of  genera,  families, 
orders,  and  even  classes,  by  natural  selection.  He 
does  "  not  doubt  that  the  theory  of  descent  with 
modification  embraces  all  the  members  of  the  same 
class,"  and  he  concedes  that  analogy  would  press  the 
conclusion  still  further ;  while  he  admits  that  "  the 
more  distinct  the  forms  are,  the  more  the  arguments 
fall  away  in  force."  To  command  assent  we  natu- 
rally require  decreasing  probability  to  be  overbalanced 
by  an  increased  weight  of  evidence.  An  opponent 
might  plausibly,  and  perhaps  quite  fairly,  urge  that 
the  links  in  the  chain  of  argument  are  weakest  just 
where  the  greatest  stress  falls  upon  them. 

To  which  Mr.  Darwin's  answer  is,  that  the  best 
parts  of  the  testimony  have  been  lost.  He  is  confi- 
dent that  intermediate  forms  must  have  existed ;  that 
in  the  olden  times  when  the  genera,  the  families,  and 
the  orders,  diverged  from  their  parent  stocks,  grada- 
tions existed  as  fine  as  those  which  now  connect  close- 
ly related  species  with  varieties.  But  they  have  passed 
and  left  no  sign.  The  geological  record,  even  if  all 
displayed  to  view,  is  a  boot  from  which  not  only  many 


48  DARWmiAITA. 

pages^  but  even  wliole  alternate  chapters,  have  been 
lost  out,  or  rather  which  were  never  j^rinted  from  the 
autographs  of  ]S'ature.  The  record  was  actually  made 
in  fossil  lithography  only  at  certain  times  and  under 
certain  conditions  (i.  e.,  at  periods  of  slow  subsidence 
and  places  of  abundant  sediment) ;  and  of  these  rec- 
ords all  but  the  last  volume  is  out  of  print ;  and  of 
its  pages  only  local  glimpses  have  been  obtained. 
Geologists,  except  Lyell,  will  object  to  this — some  of 
them  moderately,  others  with  vehemence.  Mr.  Dar- 
win himself  admits,  with  a  candor  rarely  displayed  on 
such  occasions,  that  he  should  have  expected  more 
geological  evidence  of  transition  than  he  finds,  and 
that  all  the  most  eminent  paleontologists  maintain 
the  immutability  of  species. 

The  general  fact,  however,  that  the  fossil  fauna  of 
each  period  as  a  whole  is  nearly  intermediate  in  charac- 
ter between  the  preceding  and  the  succeeding  faunas, 
is  much  relied  on.  "We  are  brought  one  step  nearer  to 
the  desired  inference  by  the  similar  "  fact^  insisted  on 
by  all  paleontologists,  that  fossils  from  two  consecu- 
tive formations  are  far  more  closely  related  to  each 
other  than  are  the  fossils  of  two  remote  formations. 
Pictet  gives  a  well-known  instance — the  general  re- 
semblance of  the  organic  remains  from  the  several 
stages  of  the  chalk  formation,  though  the  species  are 
distinct  at  each  stage.  This  fact  alone,  from  its  gen- 
erality, seems  to  have  shaken  Prof.  Pictet  in  his 
firm  belief  in  the  immutability  of  species "  (p.  335). 
What  Mr.  Darwin  now  particularly  wants  to  complete 
his  inferential  evidence  is  a  proof  that  the  same  grada- 
tion may  be  traced  in  later  periods,  say  in  the  Tertiary, 


THE  ORIGm  OF  SPECIES.  40 

and  between  that  period  and  tlie  present;  also  tliat 
the  later  gradations  are  finer,  so  as  to  leave  it  doubt- 
ful whether  the  succession  is  one  of  species — believed 
on  the  one  theory  to  be  independent,  on  the  other, 
derivative — or  of  varieties,  which  are  confessedly  deriv- 
ative. The  proof  of  the  finer  gradation  appears  to 
be  forthcoming.  Des  Hayes  and  Lyell  have  concluded 
that  many  of  the  middle  Tertiary  and  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  later  Tertiary  mollusca  are  specifically 
identical  with  living  species;  and  this  is  still  the 
almost  universally  prevalent  view.  But  Mr.  Agassiz 
states  that,  "  in  every  instance  where  he  had  sufiicient 
materials,  he  had  found  that  the  species  of  the  two 
epochs  supposed  to  be  identical  by  Des  Hayes  and 
Lyell  were  in  reality  distinct,  although  closely  allied 
species."  ^  Moreover,  he  is  now  satisfied,  as  we  under- 
stand, that  the  same  gradation  is  traceable  not  merely 
in  each  great  division  of  the  Tertiary,  but  in  particular 
deposits  or  successive  beds,  each  answering  to  a  great 
number  of  years;  where  what  have  passed  unques- 
tioned as  members  of  one  species,  upon  closer  examma- 
tion  of  numerous  specimens  exhibit  difi'erences  which 
in  his  opinion  entitle  them  to  be  distinguished  into 
two,  three,  or  more  species.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
whatever  conclusions  can  be  fairly  drawn  from  the 
present  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  in  favor  of  a 
gradation  of  varieties  into  species,  or  into  what  may 
be  regarded  as  such,  the  same  may  be  extended  to  the 
Tertiary  period.  In  both  cases,  what  some  call  species 
others  call  varieties ;  and  in  the  later  Tertiary  shells 

*  "  Proceedings  of  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences," 
vol.  iv.,  p.  178. 


50  LAEWINIAITA. 

this  difference  in  judgment  affects  almost  half  of  the 
species ! 

"We  pass  to  a  second  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Mr. 
Darwin's  theory ;  to  a  case  where  we  are  perhaps  en- 
titled to  demand  of  him  evidence  of  gradation  like 
that  which  connects  the  present  with  the  Tertiary  mol- 
lusca.  Wide,  very  wide  is  the  gap,  anatomically  and 
physiologically  (we  do  not  speak  of  the  intellectual) 
between  the  highest  quadrumana  and  man ;  and  com- 
paratively^ recent,  if  ever,  must  the  line  have  bifur- 
cated. But  where  is  there  the  slightest  evidence  of  a 
common  progenitor?  Perhaps  Mr.  Darwin  would 
reply  by  another  question:  where  are  the  fossil  re- 
mains of  the  men  who  made  the  flint  knives  and  arrow- 
heads of  the  Somme  Yalley  ? 

We  have  a  third  objection,  one,  fortunately,  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  geology.  "We  can  only  state  it 
here  in  brief  terms.  The  chapter  on  hybridism  is 
most  ingenious,  able,  and  instructive.  If  sterility  of 
crosses  is  a  special  original  arrangement  to  prevent  the 
confusion  of  species  by  mingling,  as  is  generally  as- 
sumed, then,  since  varieties  cross  readily  and  their 
offspring  is  fertile  inter  se,  there  is  a  fundamental  dis- 
tinction between  varieties  and  species.  Mr.  Darwin 
therefore  labors  to  show  that  it  is  not  a  special  endow- 
ment, but  an  incidental  acquirement.  He  does  show 
that  the  sterility  of  crosses  is  of  all  degrees;  upon 
which  we  have  only  to  say,  Natura  nonfacit  saltiim,^ 
here  any  more  than  elsewhere.  But,  upon  his  theory 
he  is  bound  to  show  how  sterility  might  be  acquired, 
through  natural  selection  or  through  something  else. 
And  the  difficulty  is,  that,  whereas  individuals  of  the 


TEE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  51 

very  same  blood  tend  to  be  sterile,  and  somewhat  re- 
moter unions  diminisb  this  tendency,  and  when  they 
have  diverged  into  two  varieties  the  cross-breeds  be- 
tween the  two  are  more  fertile  than  cither  pure  stock 
— yet  when  they  have  diverged  only  one  degree  more 
the  whole  tendency  is  reversed,  and  the  mongrel  is  ster- 
ile, either  absolutely  or  relatively.  He  who  explains 
the  genesis  of  species  through  purely  natural  agencies 
should  assign  a  natural  cause  for  this  remarkable  result ; 
and  this  Mr.  Darwin  has  not  done.  "Whether  original  or 
derived,  however,  this  arrangement  to  keep  apart  those 
forms  which  have,  or  have  acquired  (as  the  case  may 
be),  a  certain  moderate  amount  of  difference,  looks  to 
us  as  much  designed  for  the  purpose,  as  does  a  ratchet 
to  prevent  reverse  motion  in  a  wheel.  If  species  have 
originated  by  divergence,  this  keeps  them  apart. 

Here  let  us  suggest  a  possibly  attainable  test  of  the 
theory  of  derivation,  a  kind  of  instance  which  Mr. 
Darwin  may  be  fairly  asked  to  produce — viz.,  an  in- 
stance of  two  varieties,  or  what  may  be  assumed  as- 
such,  which  have  diverged  enough  to  reverse  the  move- 
ment, to  bring  out  some  sterility  in  the  crosses.  The 
best  marked  human  races  might  offer  the  most  likely 
case.  If  mulattoes  are  sterile  or  tend  to  sterility,  as 
some  naturalists  confidently  assert,  they  afford  Mr. 
Darwin  a  case  in  point.  If,  as  others  think,  no  such 
tendency  is  made  out,  the  required  evidence  is  want- 
ino* 

A  fourth  and  the  most  formidable  difficulty  is  that 
of  the  production  and  specialization  of  organs. 

It  is  well  said  that  all  organic  beings  have  been 
formed  on  two  great  laws :  unity  of  type,  and  adap- 


52  DARWINIANA. 

tation  to  the  conditions  of  existence.  ^  Tlie  special 
teleologists,  sncli  as  Palej,  occupy  themselves  with, 
the  latter  only ;  they  refer  particular  facts  to  special 
design,  but  leave  ^an  overwhehning  array  of  the  widest 
facts  inexjDlicable.  The  morphologists  build  on  unity 
of  type,  or  that  fundamental  agreement  in  the  struct- 
ure of  each  great  class  of  beings  which  is  quite  inde- 
pendent of  their  habits  or  oonditions  of  life ;  which 
requires  each  individual  '•'  to  go  through  a  certain  for- 
mality," and  to  accept,  at  least  for  a  time,  certain  or- 
gans, whether  they  are  of  any  use  to  him  or  not. 
Philosophical  minds  form  various  conceptions  for  har- 
monizing the  two  views  theoretically.  Mr.  Darwin 
harmonizes  and  explains  them  naturally.  Adaptation 
to  the  conditions  of  existence  is  the  result  of  natural 
selection ;  unity  of  type,  of  unity  of  descent-.  Accord- 
ingly, as  he  puts  his  theory,  he  is  bound  to  account  for 
the  origination  of  new  organs,  and  for  their  diversity 
in  each  great  type,  for  their  specialization,  and  every 
adaptation,  of  organ  to  function  and  of  structure  to 
condition,  through  natural  agencies.  Whenever  he 
attempts  this  he  reminds  us  of  Lamarck,  and  shows 
us  how  little  light  the  science  of  a  century  devoted  to 
structural  investigation  has  thrown  upon  the  mystery 
of  organization.  Here  purely  natural  explanations 
fail.  The  organs  being  given,  natural  selection  may 
account  for  some  improvement ;  if  given  of  a  variety 
of  sorts  or  grades,  natural  selection  might  determine 
which  should  survive  and  where  it  should  prevail. 
On  all  this  ground  the  only  line  for  the  theory  to 

^  Owen  adds  a  third,  viz.,  vegetative  repetition ;  but  this,  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  is  simply  unity  of  type. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  no 


Ou 


take  is  to  make  the  most  of  gradation  and  adlierence 
to  type  as  suggestive  of  derivation,  and  nnaccountable 
upon  any  other  scientific  ^dew — deferring  all  attempts 
to  explain  how  suck  a  metamorphosis  was  effected, 
until  naturalists  have  explained  how  the  tadpole  is 
metamorphosed  into  a  frog,  or  one  sort  of  polyp  into 
another.  As  to  why  it  is  so,  the  philosophy  of  effi- 
cient cause,  and  even  the  whole  argument  from  design, 
"would  stand,  upon  the  admission  of  such  a  theory  of 
derivation,  precisely  where  they  stand  without  it.  At 
least  there  is,  or  need  be,  no  ground  of  difference  here 
between  Darwin  and  Agassiz.  The  latter  will  admit, 
with  Owen  and  every  moi3)hologist,  that  hopeless  is 
the  attempt  to  explain  the  similarity  of  pattern  in 
members  of  the  same  class  by  utility  or  the  doctrine 
of  final  causes.  "  On  the  ordinary  view  of  the  inde- 
pendent creation  of  each  being,  we  can  only  say  that 
so  it  is,  that  it  has  so  pleased  the  Creator  to  construct 
each  animal  and  plant."  Mr.  Darwin,  in  proposing  a 
theory  which  suggests  a  how  that  harmonizes  these  facts 
into  a  system,  we  trust  implies  that  all  was  done  wise- 
ly, in  the  largest  sense  designedly,  and  by  an  intelli- 
gent first  cause.  The  contemplation  of  the  subject  on 
the  intellectual  side,  the  amplest  exposition  of  the 
unity  of  plan  in  creation,  considered  irrespective  of 
natural  agencies,  leads  to  no  other  conclusion. 

We  are  thus,  at  last,  brought  to  the  question.  What 
would  happen  if  the  derivation  of  species  were  to  be 
substantiated,  either  as  a  true  physical  theory,  or  as  a 
sufficient  hypothesis  ?  What  would  come  of  it  ?  The 
inquiry  is  a  pertinent  one,  just  now.  For,  of  those  who 
agr^  with  us  in  thinking  that  Darwin  has  not  estab- 


54  DARWimANA. 

lislied  his  tlieoiy  of  derivation  many  will  admit  with 
ns  that  he  has  rendered  a  theory  of  derivation  much 
less  improbable  than  before ;  that  such  a  theory  chimes 
in  with  the  established  doctrines  of  physical  science, 
and  is  not  unlikely  to  be  largely  accepted  long  before 
it  can  be  proved.  Moreover,  the  various  notions  that 
prevail — equally  among  the  most  and  the  least  religious 
— as  to  the  relations  between  natural  agencies  or  phe- 
nomena and  efficient  cause,  are  seemingly  more  crude, 
obscure,  and  discordant,  than  they  need  be. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  doctrine  of  the  book 
should  be  denounced  as  atheistical.  "What  does  sur- 
prise and  concern  us  is,  that  it  should  be  so  denounced 
by  a  scientific  man,  on  the  broad  assumption  that  a 
material  connection  between  the  members  of  a  series 
of  organized  beings  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of 
their  being  intellectually  connected  with  one  another 
through  the  Deity,  i.  e.,  as  products  of  one  mind,  as 
indicating  and  realizing  a  preconceived  plan.  An  as- 
sumption the  rebound  of  which  is  somewhat  fearful  to 
contemplate,  but  fortunately  one  which  every  natural 
birth  protests  against. 

It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  the  theory  in 
itself  is  perfectly  compatible  with  an  atheistic  view  of 
the  imiverse.  That  is  true ;  but  it  is  equally  true  of 
physical  theories  generally.  Indeed,  it  is  more  true 
of  the  theory  of  gravitation,  and  of  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis, than  of  the  h}q)othesis  in  qviestion.  The  latter 
merely  takes  up  a  particidar,  proxhnate  cause,  or  set 
of  such  causes,  from  which,  it  is  argued,  the  present 
diversity  of  species  has  or  may  have  contingently  re- 
sulted.    The  author  does  not  say  necessa/inly  resulted ; 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  55 

tliat  the  actual  results  in  mode  and  measure,  and  none 
other,  must  have  taken  place.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
theory  of  gravitation  and  its  extension  in  the  nebular 
hypothesis  assume  a  universal  and  %iltimate  physical 
cause,  from  which  the  effects  in  JSTatm-e  must  necessa- 
rily have  resulted,  l^ow,  it  is  not  thought,  at  least  at 
the  present  day,  that  the  establishment  of  the  E'ew- 
tonian  theory  was  a  step  toward  atheism  or  pantheism. 
Yet  the  great  achievement  of  Newton  consisted  in 
proving  that  certain  forces  (blind  forces,  so  far  as  the 
theory  is  concerned),  acting  upon  matter  in  certain 
directions,  must  necessarily  produce  planetary  orbits 
of  the  exact  measure  and  form  in  which  observation 
shows  them  to  exist — a  view  which  is  just  as  consistent 
with  eternal  necessity,  either  in  the  atheistic  or  the 
pantheistic  form,  as  it  is  with  theism. 

IN'or  is  the  theory  of  derivation  particularly  exj)osed 
to  the  charge  of  the  atheism  of  fortuity ;  since  it  mi- 
dertakes  to  assign  real  causes  for  harmonious  and  sys- 
tematic results.     But,  of  this,  a  word  at  the  close. 

The  value  of  such  objections  to  the  tlieory  of  deri- 
vation may  be  tested  by  one  or  two  analogous  cases. 
The  common  scientific  as  well  as  popular  belief  is  that 
of  the  original,  independent  creation  of  oxygen  and 
hydrogen,  iron,  gold,  and  the  like.  Is  the  speculative 
opinion  now  increasingly  held,  that  some  or  all  of  the 
supposed  elementary  bodies  are  derivative  or  com- 
pound, developed  from  some  preceding  forms  of  mat- 
ter, irreligious  1  Were  the  old  alchemists  atheists  as 
well  as  dreamers  in  their  attempts  to  transmute  earth 
into  gold  ?  Or,  to  take  an  instance  from  force  (power) 
— which  stands  one  step  nearer  to  efficient  cause  .than 


56  DARWIN'IAAU.^ 

form — was  tlie  attempt  to  prove  that  heat,  light,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism,  and  even  mechanical  power,  are 
variations  or  transmutations  of  one  force,  atheistical 
in  its  tendency  ?  The  supj^osed  establishment  of  this 
view  is  reckoned  as  one  of  the  greatest  scientific  tri- 
Tunphs  of  this  centmy. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  objection  is  brought,  not  so 
much  against  the  speculation  itself,  as  against  the 
attempt  to  show  how  derivation  might  have  been 
brought  about.  Then  the  same  objection  applies  to  a 
recent  ingenious  h}^3othesis  made  to  account  for. the 
genesis  of  the  chemical  elements  out  of  the  ethereal 
medium,^  and  to  explain  their  several  atomic  weights 
and  some  other  characteristics  by  their  successive  com- 
plexity— hydrogen  consisting  of  so  many  atoms  of  ethe- 
real substance  united  in  a  particular  order,  and  so  on. 
The  speculation  interested  the  philosophers  of  the  Brit- 
ish Association,  and  was  thought  innocent,  but  unsup- 
ported by  facts.  Sm-ely  Mr.  Darwin's  theory  is  none 
the  worse,  morally,  for  having  some  foundation  in  fact. 

In  our  opinion,  then,  it  is  far  easier  to  vindicate 
a  theistic  character  for  the  derivative  theory,  than  to 
establish  the  theory  itself  upon  adequate  scientific  evi- 
dence. Perhaps  scarcely  any  philosophical  objection 
can  be  urged  against  the  former  to  which  the  nebular 
hypothesis  is  not  equally  exposed.  Yet  the  nebular 
hypothesis  fi.nds  general  scientific  acceptance,  and  is 
adopted  as  the  basis  of  an  extended  and  recondite  illus- 
tration in  Mr.  Agassiz's  great  work.^ 

How  the  author  of  this  book  harmonizes  his  scien- 
tific theory  with  his  philosophy  and  theology,  he  has 

^  "  Contributions  to  Natural  History  of  America,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  127-131. 


THE  ORIGIN-  OF  SPECIE^.  57 

not  informed  us.  Paley  in  his  celebrated  analogy  witli 
the  watch,  insists  that  if  the  timepiece  were  so  con- 
structed as  to  produce  other  similar  watches,  after  a 
manner  of  generation  in  animals,  the  argument  from 
design  ^would  be  all  the  stronger.  What  is  to  hinder 
Mr.  Darwin  from  giving  Paley's  argument  a  further 
a-fortiori  extension  to  the  supposed  case  of  a  watch 
which  sometimes  produces  better  watches,  and  contriv- 
ances adapted  to  successive  conditions,  and  so  at  length 
turns  out  a  chronometer,  a  town  clock,  or  a  series  of 
organisms  of  the  same  type  ?  From  certain  incidental 
expressions  at  the  close  of  the  volume,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  the  motto  adopted  from  "Whewell,  we 
judge  it  probable  that  our  author  regards  the  whole 
sj^stem  of  Nature  as  one  which  had  received  at  its  first 
formation  the  impress  of  the  will  of  its  Author,  fore- 
seeing the  varied  yet  necessary  laws  of  its  action 
throughout  the  whole  of  its  existence,  ordaining  when 
and  how  each  particular  of  the  stupendous  plan  should 
be  realized  in  effect,  and — with  Him  to  whom  to  will 
is  to  do — in  ordaining  doing  it.  Whether  profoundly 
philosophical  or  not,  a  view  maintained  by  eminent 
philosophical  physicists  and  theologians,  such  as  Bab- 
bage  on  the  one  hand  and  Jowett  on  the  other,  will 
hardly  be  denounced  as  atheism.  Perhaps  Mr.  Dar- 
win would  prefer  to  express  his  idea  in  a  more  general 
way,  by  adopting .  the  thoughtful  words  of  one  of  the 
most  eminent  naturalists  of  this  or  any  age,  substitut- 
ing the  word  action  for  "thought,"  since  it  is  the 
former  (from  which  alone  i:he  latter  can  be  inferred) 
that  he  has  been  considering,  "  Taking  IsTature  as  ex- 
hibiting thought  for  my  guide,  it  appears  to  me  that 


58  DARWimANA, 

while  limnan  tlionglit  is  consecutive.  Divine  thought 
is  simultaneous,  embracing  at  the  same  time  and  for- 
ever, in  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future,  the  most 
diversified  relations  among  hundred's  of  thousands  of 
organized  beings,  each  of  which  may  present  compli- 
cations again,  which  to  study  and  understand  even 
imperfectly — as  for  instance  man  himself — mankind 
has  already  spent  thousands  of  years."  ^  In  thus  con- 
ceiving of  the  Divine  Power  in  act  as  coetaneous  with 
Divine  Thought,  and  of  both  as  far  as  may  be  apart 
from  the  human  element  of  time,  our  author  may  re- 
gard the  intervention  of  the  Creator  either  as,  humanly 
speaking,  done  from  all  time,  or  else  as  doing  through 
all  time.  In  the  ultimate  analysis  we  suppose  that 
every  philosophical  theist  must  adopt  one  or  the  other 
conception. 

A  perversion  of  the  first  view  leads  toward  athe- 
ism, the  notion  of  an  eternal  sequence  of  cause  and 
eff'ect,  for  which  there  is  no  first  cause — a  view  w^hich 
few  sane  persons  can  long  rest  in.  The  danger  which 
may  threaten  the  second  view  is  pantheism.  We  feel 
safe  from  either  error,  in  our  profound  conviction 
that  there  is  order  in  the  universe ;  that  order  pre- 
supposes mind ;  design,  will ;  and  mind  or  will,  per- 
sonality. Thus  guarded,  we  much  prefer  the  second 
of  the  two  conceptions  of  causation,  as  the  more  phil- 
osophical as  well  as  Christian  view — a  view  which 
leaves  us  w^ith  the  same  difiiculties  and  the  same  mys- 
teries in  ^Nature  as  in  Providence,  and  no  other.  ITat- 
ural  law,  upon  this  view,  is  the  human  conception  of 
continued  and  orderly  Divine  action. 

»  Op,  cit,  p.  130. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  59 

We  do  not  suppose  that  less  power,  or  otlier  power, 
is  required  to  sustain  tlie  universe  and  carry  on  its 
operations,  than  to  bring  it  into  being.  So,  while 
conceiying  no  improbability  of  "  interventions  of  Cre- 
ative mind  in  ISTature,"  if  by  such  is  meant  the  bring- 
ing to  pass  of  new  and  fitting  events  at  fitting  times, 
we  leave  it  for  profounder  minds  to  establish,  if  thej 
can,  a  rational  distinction  in  kind  between  his  work- 
ing in  K^ature  carrying  on  operations,  and  in  initiating 
those  operations. 

We  wished,  mider  the  light  of  such  views,  to  ex- 
amine more  critically  the  doctrine  of  this  book,  espe- 
cially of  some  questionable  parts;  for  instance,  its 
explanation  of  the  natural  development  of  organs, 
and  its  implication  of  a  "  necessary  acquirement  of 
mental  power"  in  the  ascending  scale  of  gradation. 
But  there  is  room  only  for  the  general  declaration 
that  we  cannot  think  the  Cosmos  a  series  which  began 
with  chaos  and  ends  with  mind,  or  of  which  mind  is 
a  result :  that,  if,  by  the  successive  origination  of  spe- 
cies and  organs  through  natural  agencies,  the  author 
means  a  series  of  events  which  succeed  each  other 
irrespective  of  a  continued  directing  intelligence — 
events  which  mind  does  not  order  and  shape  to  des- 
tined ends — then  he  has  not  established  that  doctrine, 
nor  advanced  toward  its  establishment,  but  has  accu- 
mulated improbabilities  beyond  all  belief.  Take  the 
formation  and  the  origination  of  the  successive  degrees 
of  complexity  of  eyes  as  a  specimen.  The  treatment 
of  this  subject  (pp.  188, 189),  upon  one  interpretation, 
is  open  to  all  the  objections  referred  to ;  but,  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  may  rightly  compare  the  eye  "  to 


60  DARWINIANA. 

a  telescope,  perfected  by  tlie  long-continued  efforts  of 
the  highest  human  intellects,"  we  could  carry  out  the 
analogy,  and  draw  satisfactory  illustrations  and  infer- 
ences from  it.  The  essential,  the  directly  intellectual 
thing  is  the  making  of  the  improvements  in  the  tele- 
scope or  the  steam-engine.  "Whether  the  successive 
improvements,  being  small  at  each  step,  and  consist- 
ent with  the  general  type  of  the  instrument,  are  ap- 
phed  to  some  of  the  individual  machines,  or  entire 
new  machines  are  constructed  for  each,  is  a  minor 
matter.  Though,  if  machines  could  engender,  the 
adaptive  method  would  be  most  economical ;  and 
economy  is  said  to  be  a  paramount  law  in  Xature. 
The  origination  of  the  improvements,  and  the  suc- 
cessive adaptations  to  meet  new  conditions  or  subserve 
other  ends,  are  what  answer  to  the  supernatural,  and 
therefore  remain  inexplicable.  As  to  bringing  them 
into  use,  though  wisdom  foresees  the  result,  the  cir- 
cumstances and  the  natural  competition  will  take  care 
of  that,  in  the  long-run.  The  old  ones  will  go  out  of 
use  fast  enough,  except  where  an  old  and  simple  ma- 
chine remains  still  best  adapted  to  a  particular  pur- 
pose or  condition — as,  for  instance,  the  old  Newcomen 
engine  for  pumping  out  coal-pits.  If  there's  a  Divin- 
ity that  shapes  these .  ends,  the  whole  is  intelligible 
and  reasonable ;  otherwise,  not. 

We  regret  that  the  necessity  of  discussing  philo- 
sophical questions  has  prevented  a  fuller  examination 
of  the  theory  itseK,  and  of  the  interesting  scientific 
points  which  are  brought  to  bear  in  its  favor.  One 
of  its  neatest  points,  certainly  a  very  strong  one  for 
the  local  origination  of  species,  and  their  gradual  diffu- 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES.  Gl 

sion  under  natural  agencies,  we  must  reserve  for  some 
other  convenient  opportunity. 

The  work  is  a  scientific  one,  rigidly  restricted  to 
its  direct  object ;  and  by  its  science  it  must  stand  or 
fall.  Its  aim  is,  probably,  not  to  deny  creative  inter- 
vention in  Xature — for  the  admission  of  the  inde- 
pendent origination  of  certain  types  does  away 'with 
all  antecedent  improbability  of  as  much  intervention 
as  may  be  required — but  to  maintain  that  I^atural 
Selection,  in  explaining  the  facts,  explains  also  many 
classes  of  facts  which  thousand-fold  repeated  inde- 
pendent acts  of  creation  do  not  explain,  but  leave 
more  mysterious  than  ever.  How  far  the  author  has 
succeeded,  the  scientific  world  will  in  due  time  be  able 
to  pronounce. 

As  these  sheets  are  passing  through  the  press,  a 
copy  of  the  second  edition  has  reached  us.  "We  no- 
tice with  pleasure  the  insertion  of  an  additional  motto 
on  the  reverse  of  the  title-page,  directly  claiming  the 
theistic  view  which  we  have  vindicated  for  the  doc- 
trine. Indeed,  these  pertinent  words  of  the  eminently 
wise  Bishop  Butler  comprise,  in  their  simplest  ex- 
.pression,  the  whole  substance  of  our  later  pages  : 

"  The  only  distinct  meaning  of  the  word  '  natural '  is  stated^ 
Jixed^  or  settled  ;  since  what  is  natural  as  much  requires  and 
presupposes  an  intelligent  mind  to  render  it  so,  i.  e.,  to  effect  it 
continually  or  at  stated  times,  as  what  is  supernatural  or  mi- 
raculous does  to  effect  it  for  once." 


11. 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY. — DISCUSSION  BETWEEN  TWO 
READERS  OF  DARWIn's  TREATISE  ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF 
SPECIES,    UPON   ITS   NATURAL   THEOLOGY. 

(Ameeican  Jotjrnal  of  Science  and  Aets,  September,  1S60.) 

D.  T. — Is  Darwin's  theory  atheistic  or  pantheistic? 
or,  does  it  tend  to  atheism  or  pantheism  ?  Eefore  at- 
tempting any  solution  of  this  question,  permit  me  to 
say  a  few  words  tending  to  obtain  a  definite  concep- 
tion of  necessity  and  design^  as  the  sources  from  which 
events  may  originate,  each  independent  of  the  other ; 
and  we  shall,  perhaps,  best  attain  a  clear  understand- 
ing of  each,  by  the  illustration  of  an  example  in  which 
simple  human  designers  act  upon  the  physical  powers 
of  common  matter. 

Suppose,  then,  a  square  billiard-table  to  be  placed 
with  its  corners  directed  to  the  four  cardinal  points. 
Suppose  a  player,  standing  at  the  north  corner,  to 
strike  a  red  ball  directly  to  the  south,  his  design  being 
to  lodge  the  ball  in  the  south  pocket ;  which  design,  if 
not  interfered  with,  must,  of  course  be  accomplished. 
Then  suj)pose  another  player,  standing  at  the  east 
corner,  to  direct  a  white  ball  to  the  west  comer.  This 
design  also,  if  not  interfered  with,  must  be  accom- 
plished.    Next  suppose  both  players  to  strike  their 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  63 

balls  at  the  same  instant,  with,  like  forces,  in  the  direc- 
tions before  given.  In  this  case  the  balls  would  not 
pass  as  before,  namely,  the  red  ball  to  the  south,  and 
the  white  ball  to  the  west,  but  they  must  both  meet 
and  strike  each  other  in  the  centre  of  the  table,  and, 
being  perfectly  elastic,  the  red  ball  must  pass  to  the 
west  pocket,  and  the  white  ball  to  the  south  pocket. 
"We  may  suppose  that  the  players  acted  wholly  with- 
out concert  with  each  other,  indeed,  they  may  be 
ignorant  of  each  other's  design,  or  even  of  each 
other's  existence  ;  still  we  know  that  the  events  must 
happen  as  herein  described.  Now,  the  iirst  half  of 
the  course  of  these  two  balls  is  from  an  impulse,  or 
proceeds  from  a  power,  acting  from  design.  Each 
player  has  the  design  of  driving  his  ball  across  the 
table  in  a  diagonal  line  to  accomplish  its  lodgment  at 
the  opposite  corner  of  the  table.  Neither  designed 
that  his  ball  should  be  deflected  from  that  course  and 
pass  to  another  corner  of  the  table.  The  direction  of 
this  second  part  of  the  motion  must  be  referred  en- 
tirely to  necessity^  which  directly  interferes  with  the 
pui'pose  of  him  who  designed  the  rectilinear  direction. 
We  are  not,  in  this  case,  to  go  back  to  find  design  in 
the  creation  of  the  powers  or  laws  of  inertia  and 
elasticity,  after  the  order  of  which  the  deflection,  at 
the  instant  of  collision,  necessarily  takes  place.  We 
know  that  these  powers  were  inherent  in  the  balls, 
and  were  not  created  to  answer  this  special  deflection. 
We  are  required,  by  the  hypothesis,  to  confine  atten- 
tion in  point  of  time,  from  the  instant  preceding  the 
impact  of  the  balls,  to  the  time  of  their  arrival  at  the 
opposite  corners  of  the  table.     The  cues  are  moved 


64:  DARWINIANA. 

by  design.  The  impacts  are  acts  from  design.  The 
first  half  of  the  motion  of  each  ball  is  under  the 
direction  of  design.  AYe  mean  by  this  the  particular 
design  of  each  player.  But,  at  the  instant  of  the  col- 
lision of  the  balls  upon  each  other,  direction  from 
design  ceases,  and  the  balls  no  longer  obey  the  par- 
ticular designs  of  the  j^layers,  the  ends  or  purposes 
intended  by  them  are  not  accomplished,  but  frustrated, 
by  necessity,  or  by  the  necessary  action  of  the  powers 
of  inertia  and  elasticity,  which  are  inherent  in  matter, 
and  are  not  made  by  any  design  of  a  Creator  for  this 
special  action,  or  to  serve  this  special  purpose,  but 
would  have  existed  in  the  materials  of  which  the  balls 
were  made,  although  the  players  had  never  been 
born. 

I  have  thus  stated,  by  a  simple  example  in  physi- 
cal action,  what  is  meant  by  design  and  what  by  ne- 
cessity ;  and  that  the  latter  may  exist  without  any 
dependence  upon  the  former.  If  I  have  given  the 
statem.ent  with  what  may  be  thought,  by  some,  un- 
necessary prolixity,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  have 
found  many  minds  to  have  a  great  difficulty  in  con- 
ceiving of  necessity  as  acting  altogether  independent 
of  design. 

Let  me  now  trace  these  principles  as  sources  of 
action  in  Darwin's  work  or  theory.  Let  us  see  how 
much  there  is  of  design  acting  to  produce  a  foreseen 
end,  and  thus  proving  a  reasoning  and  self-conscious 
Creator ;  and  how  much  of  mere  blind  power  acting 
without  rational  design,  or  without  a  specific  purpose 
or  conscious  foresight.  Mr.  Darwin  has  specified  in  a 
most  clear  and  unmistakable  manner  the  operation  of 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  C5 

his  three  great  powers,  or  rather,  the  three  great  laws 
by  which  the  organic  power  of  life  acts  in  the  forma- 
tion of  an  eye.     {See  p.  169.)     Following  the  method 
he  has  pointed  out,  we  will  take  a  miihber  of  animals 
of  the  same  species,  in  which  the  eye  is  not  developed. 
They  may  have  all  the  other  senses,  with  the  organs 
of  nutrition,  circulation,  respiration,  and  locomotion. 
They  all  have  a  brain  and  nerves,  and  some  of  these 
nerves  may  be  sensitive  to  light;  but  have  no  com- 
bination of  retina,  membranes,  humors,  etc.,  by  which 
the  distinct  image  of  an  object  may  be  formed  and 
conveyed  by  the  optic  nerve  to  the  cognizance  of  the 
internal  perception,  or  the  mind.     The  animal  in  this 
case  would  be  merely  sensible  of  the  difference  be- 
tween light  and  darkness.     He  would  have  no  power 
of  discriminating  form,  size,  shape,  or  color,  the  dif- 
ference of  objects,  and  to  gain  from  these  a  knowledge 
of  their  being  useful  or  hurtful,  friends  or  enemies. 
Up  to  this  point  there  is  no  appearance  of  necessity 
upon   the   scene.      The   billiard-balls  have  not  yet 
struck   together,  and  we  will  suppose  that  none  of 
the  arguments  that  may  be  used  to  prove,  from  this 
organism,  thus  existing,  that  it  could  not  have  come 
into  form  and  being  without  a  creator  acting  to  this 
end  with  intelligence  and  design,  are  opposed  by  any- 
thing that  can  be  found  in  Darwin's  theory ;  for,  so 
far,  Darwin's  laws  are  supposed  not  to  have  come 
into  operation.      Give  the  animals,  thus  organized, 
food  and  room,  and  they  may  go  on,  from  genera- 
tion to   generation,  upon   the   same   organic  level. 
Those  individuals  that,  from  natural  variation,  are 
born  with  ligTit-nerves  a  little  more  sensitive  to  light 


60  DARWmiANA. 

tlian  tlieir  parents,  will  cross  or  interbreed  witli  those 
who  have  the  same  organs  a  little  less  sensitive,  and 
thus  the  mean  standard  will  be  kept  up  without  any 
advancement.  If  our  billiard-table  were  sufficiently 
extensive,  i.  e.,  infinite,  the  balls  rolled  from  the  cor- 
ners would  never  meet,  and  the  necessity  v^hioh^Q 
have  supposed  to  deflect  them  would  never  act. 

The  moment,  however,  that  the  want  of  space  or 
food  commences  natural  selection  begins.  Here  the 
balls  meet,  and  all  future  action  is  governed  by  neces- 
sity. The  best  forms,  or  those  nerves  most  sensitive 
to  light,  connected  with  incipient  membranes  and  hu- 
mors for  corneas  and  lenses,  are  picked  out  and  pre- 
served by  natural  selection,  of  necessity.  All  cannot 
live  and  propagate,  and  it  is  a  necessity,  obvious  to  all, 
that  the  weaker  must  perish,  if  the  theory  be  true. 
Working  on,  in  this  way,  through  countless  genera- 
tions, the  eye  is  at  last  formed  in  all  its  beauty  and 
excellence.  It  must  (always  assuming  that  this  the- 
ory is  true)  result  from  this  combined  action  of 
natural  variation,  the  struggle  for  life,  and  natural 
selection,  with  as  much  certainty  as  the  balls,  after 
collision,  must  pass  to  corners  of  the  table  different 
from  those  to  which  they  were  directed,  and  so  far 
forth  as  the  eye  is  formed  by  these  laws,  acting  up- 
ward from  the  nerve  merely  sensitive  to  light,  we  can 
no  more  infer  design,  and  from  design  a  designer, 
than  we  can  infer  design  in  the  direction  of  the  bil- 
liard-balls after  the  collision.  Both  are  sufficiently 
accounted  for  by  blind  powers  acting  under  a  blind 
necessity.  Take  away  the  struggle  for  life  from  the 
one,  and  the  collision  of  the  balls  from  the  other — and 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  G7 

neither  of  tliese  was  designed — and  tlie  animal  would 
have  gone  on  without  eyes.  The  balls  would  have 
found  the  corners  of  the  table  to  which  they  were  first 
directed. 

AYhilCj  therefore,  it  seems  to,  me  clear  that  one  who 
can  find  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  intelligent 
Creator  except  through  the  evidence  of  design  in  the 
organic  world,  can  find  no  evidence  of  such  design  in 
the  construction  of  the  eye,  if  it  were  constructed  un- 
der the  operation  of  Darwin's  laws,  I  shall  not  for 
one  moment  contend  that  these  laws  are  InGOTYipatiMe 
with  design  and  a  seK-conscious,  intelligent  Creator. 
Such  design  might,  indeed,  have  coexisted  with  the 
necessity  or  natural  selection ;  and  so  the  billiard-play- 
ers might  have  designed  the  collision  of  their  balls ; 
but  neither  the  formation  of  the  eye,  nor  the  path  of 
the  balls  after  collision,  furnishes  any  sufficient  proof 
of  such  design  in  either  case. 

One,  indeed,  who  believes,  from  revelation  or  any 
other  cause,  in  the  existence  of  such  a  Creator,  the  foun- 
tain and  source  of  all  things  in  heaven  above  and  in  the 
earth  beneath,  will  see  in  natural  variation,  the  strug- 
gle for  life,  and  natural  selection,  only  the  order  or 
mode  in  which  this  Creator,  in  his  own  perfect  wis- 
dom, sees  fit  to  act.  Happy  is  he  who  can  thus  see 
and  adore.  But  how  many  are  there  who  have  no 
such  belief  from  intuition,  or  faith  in  revelation ;  but 
who  have  by  careful  and  elaborate  search  in  the  phys-* 
ical,  and  more  especially  in  the  organic  world,  in- 
ferred, by  induction,  the  existence  of  God  from  what 
has  seemed  to  them  the  wonderful  adaptation  of  the 
different  organs  and  parts  of  the  animal  body  to  its, 


G8  DARWINIAN-A. 

apparently,  designed  ends !  Imagine  a  mind  of  this 
skeptical  character,  in  all  honesty  and  under  its  best 
reason,  after  finding  itself  obliged  to  reject  the  evi- 
dence of  revelation,  to  commence  a  search  after  the 
Creator,  in  the  light  of  natural  theology.  He  goes 
through  the  proof  for  final  cause  and  design,  as  given 
in  a  summary  though  clear,  plain,  and  convincing  form, 
in  the  pages  of  Paley  and  the  "  Bridgewater  Treatises." 
The  eye  and  the  hand,  those  perfect  instruments  of 
optical  and  mechanical  contrivance  and  adaptation, 
without  the  least  waste  or  surj)lusage — these,  say 
Paley  and  Bell,  certainly  prove  a  designing  maker  as 
much  as  the  palace  or  the  watch  proves  an  architect  or 
a  watchmaker.  Let  this  mind,  in  this  state,  cross  Dar- 
win's work,  and  find  that,  after  a  sensitive  nerve  or  a 
rudimentary  hoof  or  claw,  no  design  is  to  be  found. 
From  this  j)oint  upward  the  development  is  the  mere 
necessary  result  of  natural  selection ;  and  let  him  re- 
ceive this  law  of  natural  selection  as  true,  and  where 
does  he  find  himself  ?  Before,  he  could  refer  the  exist- 
ence of  the  eye,  for  example,  only  to  design,  or  chance. 
There  was  no  other  alternative.  He  rejected  chance, 
as  impossible.  It  must  then  be  a  design.  But  Dar- 
win brings  up  another  power,  namely,  natural  selec- 
tion, in  place  of  this  impossible  chance.  This  not 
only  may,  but,  according  to  Darwin,  must  of  necessity 
produce  an  eye.  It  may  indeed  coexist  with  design, 
but  it  must  exist  and  act  and  produce  its  results,  even 
without  design.  Will  such  a  mind,  under  such  circum- 
stances, infer  the  existence  of  the  designer — God- 
when  he  can,  at  the  same  time,  satisfactorily  account  for 
the  thing  produced,  by  the  operation  of  this  natural  se- 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  G9 

lection  ?  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  perfectly  evident 
that  the  substitution  of  natural  selection,  by  necessity, 
for  design  in  the  formation  of  the'  organic  world,  is  a 
step  decidedly  atheistical.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that 
Darwin  takes  the  creation  of  organic  life,  in  its  sim- 
plest forms,  to  have  been  the  work  of  the  Deity.  In 
giving  up  design  in  these  highest  and  most  complex 
forms  of  organization,  which  have  always  been  relied 
upon  as  the  crowning  proof  of  the  existence  of  an  in- 
telligent Creator,  without  whose  intellectual  power 
they  could  not  have  been  brought  into  being,  he  takes 
a  most  decided  step  to  banish  a  belief  in  the  intelligent 
action  of  God  from  the  organic  world.  The  lower  or- 
ganisms will  go  next. 

The  atheist  will  sav,  Wait  a  little.  Some  future 
Darwin  will  show  how  the  simple  forms  came  neces- 
sarily  from  inorganic  matter.  This  is  but  another 
step  by  which,  according  to  Laplace,  "  the  discoveries 
of  science  throw  final  causes  further  back." 

A.  G. — It  is  conceded  that,  if  the  two  players  in 
the  supposed  case  were  ignorant  of  each  other's  pres- 
ence, the  designs  of  both  were  frustrated,  and  from 
necessity.  Thus  far  it  is  not  needful  to  inquire  w^heth- 
er  this  necessary  consequence  is  an  unconditional  or  a 
conditioned  necessity,  nor  to  require  a  more  definite 
statement  of  the  meaning  attached  to  the  word  neces- 
sity as  a  supposed  third  alternative. 

But,  if  the  players  knew  of  each  other's  presence, 

we  could  not  infer  from  the  result  that  the  design  of 

both  or  of  either  was  frustrated.     One  of  them  may 

have  intended  to  frustrate  the  other's  design,  and  to 
4 


70  DARWINIANA. 

effect  his  own.  Or  both  may  have  been  equally  con- 
versant with  the  properties  of  the  matter  and  the 
relation  of  the  forces  concerned  (whatever  the  cause, 
origin,  or  nature,  of  these  forces  and  properties),  and 
the  result  may  have  been  according  to  the  designs  of 
both. 

As  you  admit  that  they  might  or  might  not  have 
designed  the  collision  of  their  balls  and  its  conse- 
quences, the  question  arises  whether  there  is  any  way 
of  ascertaining  which  of  the  two  conceptions  we  may 
form  about  it  is  the  true  one.  ]^ow,  let  it  be  re- 
marked that  design  can  never  be  demonstrated,  Wit- 
nessing the  act  does  not  make  known  the  design,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  case  assumed  for  the  basis  of  the  argu- 
ment. The  word  of  the  actor  is  not  proof;  and  that 
source  of  evidence  is  excluded  from  the  cases  in  ques- 
tion. The  only  way  left,  and  the  only  possible  way  in 
cases  where  testimony  is  out  of  the  question,  is  to  infer 
th§  design  from  the  result,  or  from  arrangements  which 
strike  us  as  ada])ted  or  intended  to  produce  a  certain 
result,  which  affords  a  presumption  of  design.  The 
strength  of  this  presumption  may  be  zero,  or  an  even 
chance,  as  perhaps  it  is  in  the  assumed  case ;  but  the 
probability  of  design  will  increase  with  the  particu- 
larity of  the  act,  the  specialty  of  the  arrangement  or 
machinery,  and  with  the  number  of  identical  or  yet 
more  of  similar  and  analogous  instances,  until  it  rises 
to  a  moral  certainty — i.  e.,  to  a  conviction  which  prac- 
tically we  are  as  unable  to  resist  as  we  are  to  deny  the 
cogency  of  a  mathematical  demonstration.  A  single 
instance,  or  set  of  instances,  of  a  comparatively  simple 
arrangement  -might  suffice.     For  instance,  we  should 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  71 

not  doubt  that  a  pump  was  designed  to  raise  water  "by 
the  moving  of  the  handle.  Of  course,  the  conviction 
is  the  stronger,  or  at  least  the  sooner  arrived  at,  where 
we  can  imitate  the  arrangement,  and  ourselves  produce 
the  result  at  will,  as  we  could  with  a  pump,  and  also 
with  the  billiard-balls. 

And  here  I  would  suggest  that  your  billiard-table, 
with  the  case  of  collision,  answers  well  to  a  machine. 
In  both  a  result  is  produced  by  indirection — by  apply- 
ing a  force  out  of  line  of  the  ultimate  direction.  And, 
as  I  should  feel  as  confident  that  a  man  intended  to 
raise  water  who  was  working  a  pump-handle,  as  if  he 
were  bringing  it  up  in  pailfuls  from  below  by  means 
of  a  ladder,  so,  after  due  examination  of  the  billiard- 
table  and  its  appurtenances,  I  should  probably  think 
it  likely  that  the  effect  of  the  rebound  was  expected 
and  intended  no  less  than  that  of  the  immediate  im- 
pulse. And  a  similar  inspection  of  arrangements  and 
results  in  E^ature  would  raise  at  least  an  equal  pre- 
sumption of  design. 

You  allow  that  the  rebound  might  have  been  in- 
tended, but  you  require  proof  that  it  was.  '  We  agree 
that  a  single  such  instance  affords  no  evidence  either 
way.  But  how  would  it  be  if  you  saw  the  men  doing 
the  same  thing  over  and  over  ?  and  if  they  varied  it 
by  other  arrangements  of  the  balls  or  of  the  blow,  and 
these  were  followed  by  analogous  results?  How  if 
you  at  length  discovered  a  profitable  end  of  the  opera- 
tion, say  the  winning  of  a  wager  ?  So  in  the  coun- 
terpart case  of  natural  selection :  must  we  not  infer 
intention  from  the  arrangements  and  the  results? 
But  I  will  take  another  case  of  the  xerj  same  sort. 


72  •         DARWINIANA. 

tliongli  simpler,  and  better  adapted  to  illustrate  natural 
selection ;  because  the  change  of  direction — ^jour  ne- 
cessity— acts  gradually  or  successively,  instead  of  ab- 
ruptly. 

Suppose  I  bit  a  man  standing  obliquely  in  my  rear, 
by  throwing  forward  a  crooked  stick,  called  a  boome- 
rang. How  could  he  know  whether  the  blow  was  in- 
tentional or  not  ?  But  suppose  I  had  been  known  to 
throw  boomerangs  before ;  suppose  that,  on  different 
occasions,  I  had  before  wounded  persons  by  the  same, 
or  other  indirect  and  apparently  aimless  actions ;  and 
suppose  that  an  object  appeared  to  be  gained  in  the 
result — that  definite  ends  were  attained — would  it 
not  at  length  be  inferred  that  my  assault,  though  indi- 
rect, or  apparently  indirect,  was  designed  ? 

To  make  the  case  more  nearly  parallel  with  those 
it  is  brought  to  illustrate,  you  have  only  to  suppose 
that,  although  the  boomerang  thrown  by  me  went  for- 
ward to  a  definite  place,  and  at  least  appeared  to  sub- 
serve a  purpose,  and  the  bystanders,  after  a  while, 
could  get  traces  of  the  mode  or  the  empirical  law  of  its 
flight,  yet  they  could  not  themselves  do  anything  with 
it.  It  was  quite  beyond  their  power  to  use  it.  Would 
they  doubt,  or  deny  ^ny  intention,  on  that  account  ? 
Ko :  they  would  insist  that  design  on  my  part  must 
be  presumed  from  the  nature  of  the  results;  that, 
though  design  may  have  been  wanting  in  any  one  case, 
yet  the  repetition  of  the  result,  and  from  different 
positions  and  under  varied  circumstances,  showed  that 
there  must  have  been  design. 

Moreover,  in  the  way  your  case  is  stated,  it  seems 
to  concede  the  most  important  half  of  the  question. 


DESIGN  VERSUS  HEGESSITY,  73 

and  so  affords  a  presumption  for  tlie  rest,  on  tlie  side 
of  design.  For  you  seem  to  assume  an  actor,  a  design- 
er, accomplishing  his  design  in  the  first  instance.  You 
— a  bystander — infer  that  the  player  effected  his  de- 
sign in  sending  the  first  ball  to  the  pocket  before  him. 
You  infer  this  from  observation  alone.  Must  you  not 
from  a  continuance  of  the  same  observation  equally 
infer  a  common  design  of  the  two  players  in  the  com- 
plex result,  or  a  design  of  one  of  them  to  frustrate  the 
design  of  the  other  ? .  If  you  grant  a  designing  actor, 
the  presumption  of  design  is  as  strong,  or  upon  con- 
tinued observation  of  instances  soon  becomes  as  strong, 
in  regard  to  the  deflection  of  the  balls,  or  variation  of 
the  species,  as  it  was  for  the  result  of  the  first  impulse 
or  for  the  production  of  the  original  animal,  etc. 
■  But,  in  the  case  to  be  illustrated,  we  do  not  see  the 
player.  We  see  only  the  movement  of  the  balls. 
]^ow,  if  the  contrivances  and  adaptations  referred  to 
(p.  229)  really  do  "  prove  a  designer  as  much  as  the 
palace  or  the  watch  proves  an  architect  or  a  watch- 
maker " — as  Paley  and  Bell  argue,  and  as  your  skeptic 
admits,  while  the  alternative  is  between  design  and 
chance — then  they  prove  it  with  all  the  proof  the  case 
is  susceptible  of,  and  with  complete  conviction.  For 
we  cannot  doubt  that  the  watch  had  a  watchmaker. 
And  if  they  prove  it  on  the  supposition  that  the  unseen 
operator  acted  immediately — i.  e.,  that  the  player  di- 
rectly impelled  the  balls  in  the  directions  we  see  them 
moving,  I  insist  that  this  proof  is  not  impaired  by  our 
ascertaining  that  he  acted  medlatehj — i.  e.,  that  the 
present  state  or  form  of  the  plants  or  animals,  like 
the  present  position  of  the  billiard-balls,  resulted  from 


74:  DARWIFIANA. 

the  collision  of  the  iDdividuals  with  one  another,  or 
with  the  surroundings.  The  original  impulse,  which 
we  once  supposed  was  in  the  line  of  the  observed  moYe- 
ment,  only  proves  to  have  been  in  a  different  direc- 
tion ;  but  the  series  of  movements  took  place  with  a 
series  of  results,  each  and  all  of  them  none  the  less 
determined,  none  the  less  designed. 

"Wherefore,  when,  at  the  close,  you  quote  Laplace, 
that  "  the  discoveries  of  science  throw  final  causes  far- 
ther back,"  the  most  you  can  mean  is,  that  they  con- 
strain us  to  look  farther  back  for  the  impulse.  They 
do  not  at  all  throw  the  argument  for  design  farther 
back,  in  the  sense  of  furnishing  evidence  or  presump- 
tion that  only  the  primary  impulse  was  designed,  and 
that  all  the  rest  followed  from  chance  or  necessity. 

Evidence  of  design,  I  think  you  will  allow,  every- 
where is  drawn  from  the  observation  of  adaptations 
and  of  results,  and  has  really  nothing  to  do  with  any- 
thing else,  except  where  you  can  take  the  wo7xl  for  the 
will.  And  in  that  case  you  have  not  argument  for 
design^  but  testimony.  In  ISTature  we  have  no  testi- 
mony ;  but  the  argument  is  overwhelming. 

Ilow,  note  that  the  argument  of  the  olden  time — that 
of  Paley,  etc.,  which  your  skeptic  found  so  convincing — 
was  always  the  argument  for  design  in  the  movement 
of  the  balls  after  deflection.  For  it  was  drawn  from 
animals  produced  by  generation,  not  by  creation,  and 
through  a  long  succession  of  generations  or  deflections. 
Wherefore,  if  the  argument  for  design  is  perfect  in  the 
case  of  an  animal  derived  from  a  long  succession  of 
individuals  as  nearly  alike  as  offspring  is  generally  like 
parents  and  grandparents,  and  if  this  argument  is  not 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  75 

weakened  when  a  variation,  or  series  or  variations,  has 
occurred  in  the  course,  as  great  as  any  variations  we 
know  of  among  domestic  cattle,  how  then  is  it  weak- 
ened by  the  supposition,  or  by  the  likelihood,  that  the 
variations  have  been  twice  or  thrice  as  great  as  we  for- 
merly supposed,  or  because  the  variations  have  been 
"  picked  out,"  and  a  few  of  them  preserved  as  breeders 
of  still  other  variations,  by  natural  selection  ? 

Finally  let  it  be  noted  that  your  element  of  neoessity 
has  to  do,  so  far  as  we  know,  only  with  the  picking  out 
and  preserving  of  certain  changing  forms,  i.  e.,  with  the 
natural  selection.  This  selection,  you  may  say,  must 
happen  under  the  circumstances.  This  is  a  necessary 
result  of  the  collision  of  the  balls ;  and  these  results  can 
be  predicted.  If  the  balls  strike  so  and  so,  they  will 
be  deflected  so  and  so.  But  the  variation  itself  is  of 
the  nature  of  an  origination.  It  answers  well  to  the 
original  impulse  of  the  balls,  or  to  a  series  of  such 
impulses.  We  cannot  predict  what  particular  new 
variation  will  occur  from  any  observation  of  the  past. 
Just  as  the  first  impulse  was  given  to  the  balls  at  a 
point  out  of  sight,  so  the  inpulse  which  resulted  in  the 
variety  or  new  form  was  given  at  a  point  beyond  ob- 
servation, and  is  equally  mysterious  or  unaccountable, 
except  on  the  supposition  of  an  ordaining  will.  The 
parent  had  not  the  peculiarity  of  the  variety,  the  pro- 
geny has.  Between  the  two  is  the  dim  or  obscure  region 
of  the  formation  of  a  new  individual,  in  some  unknown 
part  of  which,  and  in  some  w^holly  unknown  w^ay,  the 
difference  is  intercalated.  To  introduce  necessity  here 
is  gratuitous  and  unscientific ;  but  here  you  must  have 
it  to  make  your  argument  valid. 


76  DARWINIANA. 

I  agree  that,  judging  from  tlie  past,  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  variation  itself  may  be  hereafter  shown 
to  resnlt  from  physical  causes.  When  it  is  so  shown, 
yon  may  extend  your  necessity  into  this  region,  but 
not  till  then.  Bnt  the  whole  course  of  scientific  dis- 
covery goes  to  assure  us  that  the  discovery  of  the 
cause  of  variation  will  be  only  a  resolution  of  varia- 
tion into  two  factors :  one,  the  immediate  secondary 
cause  of  the  changes,  which  so  far  explains  them ;  the 
other,  an  unresolved  or  unexplained  phenomenon, 
which  will  then  stand  just  where  the  product,  varia- 
tion, stands  now,  only  that  it  will  be  one  step  nearer 
to  the  efficient  cause. 

This  line  of  argument  appears  to  me  so  convincing, 
that  I  am  bound  to  suppose  that  it  does  not  meet  your 
case.  Although  you  introduced  players  to  illustrate 
what  design  is,  it  is  probable  that  you  did  not  intend, 
and  would  not  accept,  the  parallel  which  your  supposed 
case  suggested.  When  you  declare  that  the  proof 
of  design  in  the  eye  and  the  hand,  as  given  by  Paley 
and  Bell,  was  convincing,  you  meaUj  of  coui'se,  that 
it  was  convincing,  so  long  as  the  question  was  between 
design  and  chance,  but  that  now  another  alternative  is 
offered,  one  which  obviates  the  force  of  those  argu- 
ments, and  may  account  for  the  actual  results  without 
design.  I  -do  not  clearly  apprehend  this  third  alter- 
native. 

Will  you  be  so  good,  then,  as  to  state  the  grounds 
upon  which  you  conclude  tliat  the  supposed  proof  of 
design  from  the  eye,  or  the  hand,  as  it  stood  before 
Darwin's  theory  was  promulgated,  would  be  invali- 
dated by  the  admission  of  this  new  theory  ? 


DESIGN  VEItSUS  NECESSITY.  77 

D.  T. — As  I  have  ever  found  you,  in  controversy, 
meeting  the  array  of  yonr  opponent  fairly  and  directly 
without  any  attempt  to  strike  the  body  of  his  argument 
through  an  unguarded  joint  in  the  phraseology,  I  was 
somewhat  surprised  at  the  course  taken  in  your  answer 
to  my  statement  on  Darwin's  theory.  You  there  seem 
to  suppose  that  I  instanced  the  action  of  the  billiard 
balls  and  players  as  a  parallel,  throughout,  to  the  for- 
mation of  the  organic  world.  Had  it  occurred  to  me 
that  such  an  application  might  be  supposed  to  follow 
legitimately  from  my  introduction  of  this  action,  I 
should  certainly  have  stated  that  I  did  not  intend,  and 
should  by  no  means  accede  to,  that  construction.  My 
purpose  in  bringing  the  billiard-table  upon  the  scene 
was  to  illustrate,  by  example,  design  and  necessity^  as 
different  and  independent  sources  from  which  results, 
it  might  indeed  be  identical  results,  may  be  derived. 
All  the  conclusions,  therefore,  that  you  have  arrived 
at  through  this  misconception  or  misapplication  of  my 
illustration,  I  cannot  take  as  an  answer  to  the  matter 
stated  or  intended  to  be  stated  by  me.  Again,  follow- 
ing this  misconception,  you  suppose  the  skeptic  (in- 
stanced by  me  as  revealing  through  the  evidence  of 
design,  exhibited  in  the  structure  of  the  eye,  for  its 
designer,  God)  as  bringing  to  the  examination  a  belief 
in  the  existence  of  design  in  the  construction  of  the 
animals  as  they  existed  up  to  the  moment  when  the 
eye  was,  according  to  my  supposition,  added  to  the 
heart,  stomach,  brain,  etc.  By  skeptic  I,  of  course, 
intended  one  who  doubted  the  existence  of  design  in 
every  organic  structure,  or  at  least  required  proof  of 
such  design.    Kow,  as  the  watch  may  be  instanced  as  a 


78  DARWINIANA. 

more  complete  exliibition  of  design  than  a  flint  knife 
or  an  hom'-glass,  I  selected,  after  the  example  of  Paley, 
the  eye,  as  exhibiting  by  its  complex  but  harmonious 
arrangements  a  higher  evidence  of  design  and  a  de- 
signer than  is  to  be  f  oimd  in  a  nerve  sensitive  to  light, 
or  any  mere  rudimentary  part  or  organ.  I  could  not 
mean  by  skeptic  one  who  believed  in  design  so  far  as 
a  claw,  or  a  nerve  sensitive  to  light,  was  concerned,  but 
doubted  all  above.  For  one  who  believes  in  design  at 
all  will  not  fail  to  recognize  it  in  a  hand  or  an  eye. 
But  I  need  not  extend  these  remarks,  as  you  acknowl- 
edge in  the  sequel  to  your  argument  that  you  may  not 
have  suited  it  to  the  case  as  I  had  stated  it. 

You  now  request  me  to  "  state  the  grounds  upon 
which  I  conclude  that  the  supposed  proof  of  design 
from  the  eye  and  the  hand,  as  it  stood  before  Darwin's 
theory  was  promulgated,  is  invalidated  by  the  admis- 
sion of  that  theory."  It  seems  to  me  that  a  sufficient 
answer  to  this  question  has  already  been  made  in  the 
last  part  of  my  former  paper ;  but,  as  you  request  it, 
I  will  go  over  the  leading  points  as  there  given,  with 
more  minuteness  of  detail. 

Let  us,  then,  suppose  a  skeptic,  one  who  is  yet  con- 
sidering and  doubting  of  the  existence  of  God,  having 
already  concluded  that  the  testimony  from  any  and  all 
revelation  is  insufficient,  and  having  rejected  what  is 
called  the  a  priori  arguments  brought  forward  in  nat- 
ural theology,  and  pertinaciously  insisted  uj)on  by  Dr. 
Clark  and  others,  turning  as  a  last  resource  to  the  argu- 
ment from  design  in  the  organic  world.  Yoltaire  tells 
him  that  a  palace  could  not  exist  without  an  architect  to 
design  it.    Dr.  Paley  tells  him  that  a  watch  proves  the 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY,  79 

design  of  a  watclimaker.  He  thinks  this  very  reason- 
able, and,  although  he  sees  a  difference  between  the 
works  of  ]^ature  and  those  of  mere  human  art,  yet  if  he 
can  find  in  any  organic  body,  or  part  of  a  body,  the 
same  adaptation  to  its  use  that  he  finds  in  a  watch,  this 
truth  will  go  very  far  toward  proving,  if  it  is  not  en- 
tirely conclusive,  that,  in  making  it,  the  powers  of  life  by 
wdiich  it  grew  were  directed  by  an  intelligent,  reason- 
ing master.  Under  the  guidance  of  Paley  he  takes  an 
eye,  which,  although  an  optical,  and  not  a  mechanical 
instrument  like  the  watch,  is  as  well  adapted  to  testify 
to  design.  He  sees,  first,  that  the  eye  is  transparent 
when  every  other  part  of  the  body  is  opaque.  Was 
this  the  result  of  a  mere  Epicurean  or  Lucretian  "  for- 
tuitous concourse  "  of  living  "  atoms  ?  "  He  is  not  yet 
certain  it  might  not  be  so.  Next  he  sees  that  it  is 
spherical,  and  that  this  convex  form  alone  is  capable 
of  changing  the  direction  of  the  light  which  proceeds 
from  a  distant  bodv,  and  of  collectinoj  it  so  as  to  form 
a  distinct  image  within  its  globe.  ^^Text  he  sees  at  the 
exact  place  where  this  image  must  be  formed  a  curtain 
of  nerve-work,  ready  to  receive  and  convey  it,  or  excite 
from  it,  in  its  own  mysterious  way,  an  idea  of  it  in  the 
mind.  Last  of  all,  he  comes  to  the  crystalline  lens. 
Now,  he  has  before  learned  that  without  this  lens  an 
eye  would  by  the  aqueous  and  vitreous  humors  alone 
form  an  image  upon  the  retina,  but  this  image  would 
be  indistinct  from  the  light  not  being  sufiiciently 
refracted,  and  likewise  from  having  a  colored  fringe 
round  its  edges.  This  last  eSect  is  attributable  to  the 
refrangibility  of  hght,  that  is,  to  some  of  the  colors 
being  more  refracted  than  others.     He  likewise  knows 


80  DARWmiANA. 

that  more  tlien  a  hundred  years  ago  Mr.  DoUond  hav- 
ing found  out,  after  many  experiments,  that  some  kinds 
of  glass  have  the  power  of  dispersing  light,  for  each  de- 
gree of  its  refraction,  much  more  than  other  kinds,  and 
that  on  the  discovery  of  this  fact  he  contrived  to  make 
telescopes  in  which  he  passed  the  light  through  two 
object-glasses  successively,  one  of  which  he  made  of 
crown  and  one  of  flint  glass,  so  ground  and  adapted  to 
each  other  that  the  greater  dispersion  produced  by  the 
substance  of  one  should  be  corrected  by  the  smaller  dis- 
persion of  the  other.  This  contrivance  corrected  entire- 
ly the  colored  images  which  had  rendered  all  previous 
telescopes  very  imperfect.  He  finds  in  this  invention 
all  the  elements  of  design,  as  it  appeared  in  the  thought 
and  action  of  a  human  designer.  First,  conjecture  of 
certain  laws  or  facts  in  optics.  Then,  experiment 
proving  these  laws  or  facts.  Then,  the  contrivance 
and  formation  of  an  instrument  by  which  those  laws  or 
facts  must  produce  a  certain  sought  result. 

Thus  enlightened,  our  skeptic  tm^ns  to  his  crystal- 
line lens  to  see  if  he  can  discover  the  work  of  a 
DoUond  in  this.  Here  he  finds  that  an  eye,  having  a 
crystalline  lens  placed  between  the  humors,  not  only 
refracts  the  lio;ht  more  than  it  would  be  refracted  bv 
the  humors  alone,  but  that,  in  this  combination  of 
humors  and  lens,  the  colors  are  as  completely  corrected 
as  in  the  combination  of  Dollond's  telescope.  Can  it 
be  that  there  was  no  design,  no  designer,  directing  the 
powers  of  life  in  the  formation  of  this  wonderful 
organ  ?  Our  skeptic  is  aware  that,  in  the  arts  of  man, 
great  aid  has  been,  sometimes,  given  by  chance,  that 
is,  by  the  artist  or  workman  observing  some  fortuitous 


DESiaiT  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  81 

combination,  form,  or  action,  around  liim.  lie  has 
heard  it  said  that  the  chance  arrangement  of  two  pairs 
of  spectacles,  in  the  shop  of  a  Dutch  optician,  gave  the 
direction  for  constructing  the  first  telescope.  Possibly, 
in  time,  say  a  few  geological  ages,  it  might  in  some 
optician's  shop  have  brought  about  a  combination  of 
flint  and  crown  glass  which,  together,  should  have  been 
achromatic.  But  the  space  between  the  humors  of  the 
eye  is  not  an  optician's  shop  where  object-glasses  of  all 
kinds,  shapes,  and  sizes,  are  placed  by  chance,  in  all 
manner  of  relations  and  positions.  On  the  hypothesis 
under  which  our  skeptic  is  making  his  examination — 
the  eye  having  been  completed  in  all  but  the  formation 
of  the  lens — the  place  which  the  lens  occupies  when 
completed  was  filled  with  parts  of  the  humors  and 
plane  membrane,  homogeneous  in  texture  and  surface, 
presenting,  therefore,  neither  the  variety  of  the  mate- 
rials nor  forms  which  are  contained  in  the  optician's 
shop  for  chance  to  make  its  combinations  with.  How, 
then,  could  it  be  cast  of  a  combination  not  before  used, 
and  fashioned  to  a  shape  different  from  that  before 
known,  and  placed  in  exact  combination  wdth  all  the 
parts  before  enumerated,  with  many  others  not  even 
mentioned  ?  He  sees  no  parallelism  of  condition,  then, 
by  which  chance  could  act  in  forming  a  crystalline 
lens,  which  answers  to  the  condition  of  an  optician's 
shop,  where  it  might  be  possible  in  many  ages  for 
chance  to  combine  existino:  forms  into  an  achromatic 
object-glass. 

Considering,  therefore,  the  eje,  thus  completed  and 
placed  in  its  bony  case  and  provided  with  its  muscles, 
its  lids,  its  tear-ducts,  and  all  its  other  elaborate  and 


82  DARWINIANA. 

curious  appendages,  and,  a  tliousand  times  more  won- 
derful still,  without  being  encumbered  with  a  single 
superfluous  or  useless  part,  can  tie  say  that  this  could 
be  the  work  of  chance  ?  The  miprobabilitj  of  this  is 
so  great,  and  consequently  the  evidence  of  design  is  so 
strong,  that  he  is  about  to  seal  his  verdict  in  favor  of 
design,  when  he  opens  Mr.  Darwin's  book. 

There  he  finds  that  an  eye  is  no  more  than  a  vital 
aggregation  or  growth,  directed,  not  by  design  nor 
chance,  but  moulded  by  natural  variation  and  natural 
selection,  through  which  it  must,  necessarily,  have  been 
developed  and  formed.  Particles  or  atoms  being  ag- 
gregated by  the  blind  powers  of  life,  must  become 
under  the  given  conditions,  by  natural  variation  and 
natural  selection,  eyes,  without  design,  as  certainly  as 
the  red  billiard-ball  went  to  the  west  pocket,  by  the 
powers  of  inertia  and  elasticity,  without  the  design  of 
the  hand  that  put  it  in  motion.     [See  Darwin,  p.  169.) 

Let  us  lay  before  our  skeptic  the  way  in  which  we 
may  suppose  that  Darwin  would  trace  the  operation 
of  life,  or  the  vital  force  conforming  to  these  laws. 
In  doing  this  we  need  not  go  through  with  the  forma- 
tion of  the  several  membranes,  humors,  etc.,  but  take 
the  crystalline  lens  as  the  most  curious  and  nicely  ar- 
ranged and  adapted  of  all  the  parts,  and  as  giving, 
moreover,  a  close  parallel,  in  the  end  produced,  to  that 
produced  by  design,  by  a  human  designer,  Dollond, 
in  forming  his  achromatic  object-glass.'  If  it  can  be 
shown  that  natural  variation  and  natural  selection 
were  capable  of  forming  the  crystalline  lens,  it  will 
not  be  denied  that  they  were-  capable  of  forming  the 
iris,  the  sclerotica,  the  aqueous  humors,  or  any  and  all 


LESION  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  83 

the  otlier  parts.  Suppose,  tlieii,  that  we  have  a  num- 
ber of  animalsj  with  eyes  yet  wanting  the  crystalline. 
In  this  state  the  animals  can  see,  but  dimly  and  im- 
perfectly, as  a  man  sees  after  having  been  couched. 
Some  of  the  offspring  of  these  animals  have,  by  nat- 
ural variation^  merely  a  portion  of  the  membrane 
which  separates  the  aqueous  from  the  vitreous  humor 
a  little  thickened  in  its  middle  part,  a  little  swelled 
out.  This  refracts  the  light  a  little  more  than  it  would 
be  refracted  by  a  membrane  in  which  no  such  swell- 
ing existed,  and  not  only  so,  but,  in  combination  with 
the  humors,  it  corrects  the  errors  of  dispersion  and 
makes  the  image  somewhat  more  colorless.  All  the 
young  animals  that  have  this  swelled  membrane  see 
more  distinctly  than  their  parents  or  brethren.  They, 
therefore,  have  an  advantage  over  them  in  the  struggle 
for  life.  They  can  obtain  food  more  easily ;  can  find 
their  prey,  and  escape  from  their  enemies  with  great- 
er facility  than  their  kindred.  This  thickening  and 
rounding  of  the  membrane  goes  on  from  generation 
to  generation  by  natural  variation;  natural  selection 
all  the  while  "picking  out  with  unerring  skill  all  the 
improvements,  through  countless  generations,"  until, 
at  length  it  is  found  that  the  membrane  has  become  a 
perfect  crystalline  lens.  ISTow,  where  is  the  design  in 
all  this  ?  The  membrane  was  not  thickened  and  round- 
ed to  the  end  that  the  image  should  be  more  distinct 
and  colorless ;  but,  being  thickened  and  rounded  by 
the  operation  of  natural  variation,  inherent  in  genera- 
tion, natural  selection  of  necessity  produced  the  result 
that  we  have  seen.  The  same  result  was  thus  pro- 
duced of  necessity.)  in  the  eye,  that  Dollond  came  at, 


84:  DARWmiANA. 

in  the  telescope,  with  design,  through  painful  guessing, 
reasoning,  exj)erimenting,  and  forming. 

Suppose  our  skeptic  to  believe  in  all  this  power  of 
natural  selection ;  will  he  now  seal  up  his  verdict  for 
design,  with  the  same  confidence  that  he  would  be- 
fore he  heard  of  Darwin  ?  If  not,  then  "  the  supposed 
proof  from  design  is  invalidated  bv  Darwin's  theory." 

A.  G. — ^Waiving  incidental  points  and  looking  only 
to  the  gist  of  the  question,  I  remark  that  the  argu- 
ment for  design  as  against  chance,  in  the  formation  of 
the  eye,  is  most  convincingly  stated  in  your  argument. 
Upon  this  and  uj)on  numerous  similar  arguments  the 
whole  question  we  are  discussing  turns.  So,  if  the 
skeptic  was  about  to  seal  his  verdict  in  favor  of  design,, 
and  a  designer,  when  Darwin's  book  apj^eared,  why 
should  his  verdict  now  be  changed  or  withheld  ?  All 
the  facts  about  the  eye,  which  convinced  him  that  the 
organ  was  designed,  remain  just  as  they  were.  His 
conviction  was  not  produced  through  testimony  or  eye- 
witness, but  design  was  irresistibly  inferred  from  the 
evidence  of  contrivance  in  the  eye  itself. 

ITow,  if  the  eye  as  it  is,'  or  has  become,  so  convin- 
cingly argued  design,  why  not  each  particular  step  or 
part  of  this  result  ?  If  the  -production  af  a  perfect 
crystalline  lens  in  the  eye — you  know  not  how — as 
much  indicated  design  as  did  the  production  of  a  Dol- 
•lond  achromatic  lens — you  understand  how — then  why 
does  not  "  the  swelling  out "  of  a  particular  portion  of 
the  membrane  behind  the  iris — caused  you  know  not 
how — which,  by  '^  correcting  the  errors  of  dispersion 
and  making  the  image   somewhat  more  colorless," 


DESIGN  VERSUS  NECESSITY.  -85 

enabled  the  "young  animals  to  see  more  distinctly 
than  their  parents  or  brethren,"  equally  indicate  design 
— if  not  as  much  as  a  perfect  crystalline,  or  a  Dollond 
compound  lens,  yet  as  much  as  a  common  spectacle- 
glass  ? 

Darwin  only  assures  you  that  what  you  may  have 
thought  was  done  directly  and  at  once  was  done  in- 
directly and  successively.  But  you  freely  admit  that 
indirection  and  succession  do  not  invalidate  design, 
and  also  that  Paley  and  all  the  natural  theologians 
drew  the  arguments  which  convinced  your  skeptic 
wholly  from  eyes  indirectly  or  naturally  produced. 

Recall  a  woman  of  a  past  generation  and  show  her 
a  web  of  cloth ;  ask  her  how  it  was  made,  and  she  will 
say  that  the  wool  or  cotton  was  carded,  spun,  and 
woven  by  hand.  When  you  tell  her  it  was  not  made 
by  manual  labor,  that  probably  no  hand  has  touched 
the  materials  throughout  the  process,  it  is  possible 
that  she  might  at  first  regard  your  statement  as  tan- 
tamount to  the  assertion  that  the  cloth  was  made 
without  design.  If  she  did,  she  would  not  credit 
your  statement.  If  you  patiently  explained  to  her 
the  theory  of  carding -machines,  spinning  -  jennies, 
and  power-looms,  would  her  reception  of  your  ex- 
planation weaken  her  conviction  that  the  cloth  was 
the  result  of  design  ?  It  is  certain  that  she  would 
believe  in  design  as  firmly  as  before,  and  that  this 
belief  would  be  attended  by  a  higher  conception  and 
reverent  admiration  of  a  wisdom,  skill,  and  power  • 
greatly  beyond  anything  she  had  previously  conceived 
possible. 

Wherefore,  we  may  insist  that,  for  all  that  yet 


86  LAEWINIANA. 

ap|)earSj  the  argument  for  design,  as  presented  by  tlie 
natural  theologians,  is  just  as  good  now^  if  we  accept 
Darwin's  theory,  as  it  was  before  that  theory  was  pro- 
mulgated ;  and  that  the  skeptical  juryman,  who  was 
about  to  join  the  other  eleven  in  a  unanimous  ver- 
dict in  favor  of  design,  finds  no  good  excuse  for  keep- 
ing the  court  longer  waiting/ 

\}  To  parry  an  adversary's  thrust  at  a  vulnerable  part,  or  to  show 
that  it  need  not  be  fatal,  is  an  incomplete  defense.  If  the  discussion 
had  gone  on,  it  might,  perhaps,  have  been  made  to  appear  that  the 
Darwinian  hypothesis,  so  far  from  involving  the  idea  of  necessity 
(except  in  the  sense  that  everything  is  of  necessity),  was  based  upon  the 
opposite  idea,  that  of  contingency.] 


III. 


NATURAL     SELECTION   NOT   INCONSISTENT   WITH    NATCEAL 

THEOLOGY. 

Atlantic  Monthly  fob  July^  August,  and  October,  1860,  eepkinted  in  1861. 

I. 

!N"ovELTiES  are  enticing  to  most  people;  to  ns  tliey 
are  simply  annoying.  We  cling  to  a  long-accepted 
theory,  just  as  we  cling  to  an  old  suit  of  clothes.  A 
new  theory,  like  a  new  pair  of  breeches  (the  Atlantio 
still  affects  the  older  type  of  nether  garment),  is  sure 
to  have  hard-fitting  places ;  or,  even  when  no  particu- 
lar fault  can  be  found  with  the  article,  it  oppresses 
with  a  sense  of  general  discomfort,  l^ew  notions  and 
new  styles  worry  us,  till  we  get  well  used  to  them, 
which  is. only  by  slow  degrees. 

Wherefore,  in  Galileo's  time,  we  might  have 
helped  to  proscribe,  or  to  burn — had  he  been  stub- 
born enough  to  warrant  cremation — even  the  great 
pioneer  of  inductive  research;  although,  when  we 
had  fairly  recovered  our  composure,  and  had  leisurely 
excogitated  the  matter,  we  might  have  come  to  con- 
clude that  the  new  doctrine  was  better  than  the  old 
one,  after  all,  at  least  for  those  who  had  notliing  to 
unlearn. 

Such  being  our  habitual  state  of  mind,  it  may  well 


88  DARWIJSflANA. 

be  believed  that  the  perusal  of  tlie  new  book  ''  On  the 
Origin  of  Species  by  Means  of  JSTatural  Selection" 
left  an  uncomfortable  impression,  in  spite  of  its  plau- 
sible and  winning  ways.  We  were  not  wholly  unpre- 
pared for  it,  as  many  of  our  contemporaries  seem  to 
have  been.  The  scientific  reading:  in  which  we  induls'e 
as  a  relaxation  from  severer  studies  had  raised  dim 
forebodings.  Investigations  about  the  succession  of 
species  in  time,  and  their  actual  geographical  distribu- 
tion over  the  earth's  sui'f ace,  were  leading  up  from  all 
sides  and  in  various  ways  to  the  question  of  their 
origin.  ]^ow  and  then  we  encoimtered  a  sentence, 
like  Prof.  Owen's  "  axiom  of  the  continuous  operation 
of  the  ordained  becoming  of  living  things,"  which 
haunted  us  like  an  apparition.  For,  dim  as  our  con- 
ce]3tion  must  needs  be  as  to  what  such  oracular  and 
grandiloquent  phrases  might  really  mean,  we  felt  con- 
fident that  they  presaged  no  good  to  old  beliefs. 
Foreseeing,  yet  deprecating,  the  coming  time  of 
trouble,  we  still  hoped  that,  with  some  repairs  and 
makeshifts,  the  old  views  might  last  out  our  days. 
Ai^res  nous  le  deluge.  Still,  not  to  lag  behind  the 
rest  of  the  world,  we  read  the  book  in  which  the  new 
theory  is  promulgated.  "We  took  it  up,  like  our 
neighbors,  and,  as  was  natural,  in  a  somewhat  captious 
frame  of  mind. 

Well,  we  found  no  cause  of  quarrel  with  the  first 
chapter.  Here  the  author  takes  us  directly  to  the 
barn-yard  and  the  kitchen-garden.  Like  an  honorable 
rural  member  of  our  General  Court,  who  sat  silent 
mitil,  near  the  close  of  a  long  session,  a  bill  requiring 
all  swine  at  large  to  wear  pokes  was  introduced,  when 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  89 

he  claimed  the  privilege  of  addressing  the  house,  on 
the  proper  ground  that  he  had  been  "brought  up 
among  the  pigs,  and  knew  all  about  them  '^ — so  we 
were  brought  up  among  cows  and  cabbages  ;  and  the 
lowing  of  cattle,  the  cackle  of  hens,  and  the  cooing  of 
pigeons,  were  sounds  native  and  pleasant  to  our  ears. 
So  "  Yariation  under  Domestication  "  dealt  with  fa- 
miliar subjects  in  a  natural  way,  and  gently  intro- 
duced "  Yariation  under  JSTature,"  which  seemed  likely 
enough.  Then  follows  "  Struggle  for  Existence  " — a 
principle  which  we  experimentally  know  to  be  true 
and  cogent — bringing  the  comfortable  assurance,  that 
man,  even  upon  Leviathan  Hobbes's  theory  of  society, 
is  no  worse  than  the  rest  of  creation,  since  all  JSTature 
is  at  war,  one  species  with  another,  and  the  nearer 
kindred  the  more  internecine — bringing  in  thousand- 
fold confirmation  and  extension  of  the  Malthusian 
doctrine  that  population  tends  far  to  outrun  means  of 
subsistence  throughout  the  animal  and  vegetable  world, 
and  has  to  be  kept  down  by  sharp  preventive  checks ; 
so  that  not  more  than  one  of  a  hundred  or  a  thousand 
of  the  individuals  whose  existence  is  so  wonderfully 
and  so  sedulously  provided  for  ever  comes  to  anything, 
under  ordinary  circumstances ;  so  the  lucky  and  the 
strong  must  prevail,  and  the  weaker  and  ill-favored  must 
perish ;  and  then  follows,  as  naturally  as  one  sheep 
follows  another,  the  chapter  on  "  l^atural  Selection," 
Darwin's  cheval  de  hataille,  which  is  very  much  the 
l^apoleonic  doctrine  that  Providence  favors  the  sti'ong- 
est  battalions — that,  since  manv  more  individuals  are 
born  than  can  possibly  survive,  those  individuals  and 
those  variations  which  possess  any  advantage,  however 


90  DARWimANA. 

sliglit,  over  the  rest,  are  in  the  long-run  sure  to  sur- 
vive, to  propagate,  and  to  occupy  the  limited  field,  to 
the  exclusion  or  destruction  of  the  weaker  brethren. 
All  this  we  pondered,  and  could  not  much  object  to. 
In  fact,  we  began  to  contract  a  liking  for  a  system 
which  at  the  outset  illustrates  the  advantages  of  good 
breeding,  and  which  makes  the  most  "  of  every  creat- 
ure's best." 

Could  we  "  let  by-gones  be  by-gones,"  and,  begin- 
ning now,  go  on  improving  and  diversifying  for  the 
future  by  natural  selection,  could  we  even  take  up  the 
theory  at  the  introduction  of  the  actually  existing 
species,  we  should  be  well  content ;  and  so,  perhaps, 
would  most  naturalists  be.  It  is  by  no  means  difficult 
to  believe  that  varieties  are  incipient  or  possible  spe- 
cies, when  we  see  what  trouble  naturalists,  especially 
botanists,  have  to  distinguish  between  them — one  re- 
garding as  a  true  species  what  another  regards  as  a 
variety ;  when  the  progress  of  knowledge  continually 
increases,  rather  than  diminishes,  the  number  of 
doubtful  instances ;  and  when  there  is  less  agreement 
than  ever  among  naturalists  as  to  what,  is  the  basis  in 
^Nature  upon  which  our  idea  of  species  reposes,  or  how 
the  word  is  to  be  defined.  Indeed,  when  we  consider 
the  endless  disputes  of  naturalists  and  ethnologists 
over  the  human  races,  as  to  whether  they  belong  to 
one  species  or  to  more,  and,  if  to  more,  whether  to 
three,  or  five,  or  fifty,  we  can  hardly  help  fancying 
that  both  may  be  right — or  rather,  that  the  uni-humani- 
tarians  would  have  been  right  many  thousand  years 
ago,  and  the  multi-humanitarians  will  be  several  thou- 
sand years  later ;  while  at  present  the  safe  thing  to 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  91 

say  is,  that  probably  tliere  is  some  truth  on  both 
sides. 

"  ISTatural  selection,"  Darwin  remarks,  "  leads  to 
divergence  of  character ;  for  the  more  living  beings  can 
be  supported  on  the  same  area,  the  more  they  diverge 
in  structm-e,  habits,  and  constitution"  (a  principle 
which,  by-the-way,  is  paralleled  and  illustrated  by  the 
diversification  of  human  labor) ;  and  also  leads  to  much 
extinction  of  intermediate  or  unimproved  forms.  !Now, 
though  this  divergence  may  "  steadily  tend  to  increase," 
yet  this  is  evidently  a  slow  process  in  ]N"ature,  and 
liable  to  much  counteraction  wherever  man  does  not 
interpose,  and  so  not  likely  to  work  much  harm  for 
the  future.  And  if  natural  selection,  with  artificial  to 
help  it,  will  produce  better  animals  and  better  men 
than  the  present,  and  fit  them  better  "  to  the  condi- 
tions of  existence,"  why,  let  it  work,  say  we,  to  the 
top  of  its  bent.  There  is  still  room  enough  for  im- 
provement. Only  let  us  hope  that  it  always  works 
for  good :  if  not,  the  divergent  lines  on  Darwin's  litho- 
graphic diagram  of  "  Transmutation  made  Easy,"  omi- 
nously show  what  small  deviations  from  the  straight 
path  may  come  to  in  the  end. 

The  prospect  of  the  future,  accordingly,  is  on  the 
whole  pleasant  and  encouraging.  It  is  only  the  back- 
ward glance,  the  gaze  up  the  long  vista  of  the  past, 
that  reveals  anything  alarming.  Here  the  lines  con- 
verge as  they  recede  into  the  geological  ages,  and  point 
to  conclusions  which,  upon  the  theory,  are  inevitable, 
but  hardly  welcome.  The  very  first  step  backward 
makes  the  negro  and  the  Hottentot  our  blood-rela- 
tions— not  that  reason  or  Scripture  objects  to  that, 


92  DARWINIANA. 

tliougli  pride  may.  The  next  suggests  a  closer  asso- 
ciation of  oui'  ancestors  of  the  olden  time  with  "  our 
poor  relations  "  of  the  quadrumanous  family  than  we 
like  to  acknowledge.  Fortunately,  however — even  if 
we  must  account  for  him  scientifically — man  with  his 
two  feet  stands  upon  a  foundation  of  his  own.  Inter- 
mediate links  between  the  Bimana  and  the  Quadru- 
mana  are  lacking  altogether ;  so  that,  put  the  gene- 
alogy of  the  brutes  upon  what  footing  you  will,  the 
four-handed  races  will  not  serve  for  our  forerunners 
— at  least,  not  until  some  monkey,  live  or  fossil,  is 
producible  with  great-toes,  instead  of  thumbs,  upon 
his  nether  extremities ;  or  until  some  lucky  geologist 
turns  up  the  bones  of  his  ancestor  and  prototype  in 
France  or  England,  who  was  so  busy  "napping  the 
chuckie-stanes"  and  chipping  out  flint  knives  and 
arrow-heads  in  the  time  of  the  drift,  very  many  ages 
ago — before  the  British  Channel  existed,  says  Lyell  ^ 
— and  until  these  men  of  the  olden  time  are  shown  to 
have  worn  their  great-toes  in  the  divergent  and  thumb- 
like fashion.  That  would  be  evidence  indeed:  but, 
until  some  testimony  of  the  sort  is  produced,  we  must 
needs  believe  in  the  separate  and  special  creation  of 
man,  however  it  may  have  been  with  the  lower  ani- 
mals and  with  plants. 

]^o  doubt,  the  full  development  and  symmetry  of 
Darwin's  hypothesis  strongly  suggest  the  evolution  of 

*  Vide  "  Proceedings  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Science,"  1859,  and  London  Aihenceicm,  passim.  It  appears 
to  be  conceded  that  these  "  celts  "  or  stone  knives  are  artificial  pro- 
ductions, and  apparently  of  the  age  of  the  mammoth,  the  fossil  rhi- 
noceros, etc. 


NATURAL  SELECTIOJS-,  ETC.  93 

the  human  no  less  than  the  lower  animal  races  out  of 
some  simple  primordial  animal — that  all  are  equally 
"  lineal  descendants  of  some  few  beings  which  lived 
long  before  the  first  bed  of  the  Silurian  system  w^as 
deposited."  But,  as  the  author  speaks  disrespectfully 
of  spontaneous  generation,  and  accepts  a  supernatural 
beginning  of  life  on  earth,  in  some  form  or  forms  of 
being  which  included  potentially  all  that  have  since 
existed  and  are  yet  to  be,  he  is  thereby  not  warranted 
to  extend  his  inferences  beyond  the  evidence,  or  the 
fair  probability.  There  seems  as  great  likelihood  that 
one  special  origination  should  be  followed  by  another 
upon  fitting  occasion  (such  as  the  introduction  of  man), 
as  that  one  form  should  be  transmuted  into  another 
upon  fitting  occasion,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  succession 
of  species  which  differ  from  each,  other  only  in  some 
details.  To  compare  small  things  with  great  in  a 
homely  illustration :  man  alters  from  time  to  time  his 
instruments  or  machines,  as  new  circumstances  or  con- 
ditions may  require  and  his  wit  suggest.  Minor  altera- 
tions and  improvements  he  adds  to  the  machine  he 
possesses ;  he  adapts  a  new  rig  or  a  new  rudder  to  an 
old  boat :  this  answers  to  Yay^iation.  "  Like  begets 
like,"  being  the  great  rule  in  l^ature,  if  boats  could 
engender,  the  variations  would  doubtless  be  propa- 
gated, like  those  of  domestic  cattle.  In  course  of 
time  the  old  ones  would  be  worn  out  or  wrecked ;  the 
best  sorts  would  be  chosen  for  each  particular  use,  and 
further  improved  upon ;  and  so  the  primordial  boat 
be  developed  into  the  scow,  the  skiff,  the  sloop,  and 
other  species  of  water-craft — the  very  diversification, 
as  well  as  the  successive  improvements,  entailing  the 


94  DARWINIANA. 

disappearance  of  intermediate  forms,  less  adapted  to 
any  one  jDarticular  purpose ;  wherefore  these  go  slowly 
out  of  use,  and  become  extinct  species :  this  is  Natu- 
ral Selection.  I^ow,  let  a  great  and  important  advance 
be  made,  like  that  of  steam  navigation :  here,  though 
the  engine  might  be  added  to  the  old  vessel,  yet  the 
wiser  and  therefore  the  actual  way  is  to  make  a  new 
vessel  on  a  modified  plan  :  this  may  answer  to  SpecijiG 
Creation.  Anyhow,  the  one  does  not  necessarily  ex- 
clude the  other.  Yariation  and  natural  selection  may 
play  their  part,  and  so  may  specific  creation  also. 
Why  not  ? 

This  leads  us  to  ask  for  the  reasons  which  call  for 
this  new  theory  of  transmutation.  The  beginning  of 
things  must  needs  lie  in  obscurity,  beyond  the  bounds 
of  proof,  though  within  those  of  conjecture  or  of  ana- 
logical inference.  Why  not  hold  fast  to  the  customary 
view,  that  all  species  were  directly,  instead  of  indi- 
rectly, created  after  their  respective  kinds,  as  we  now 
behold  them — and  that  in  a  manner  which,  passing 
our  comprehension,  we  intuitively  refer  to  the  super- 
natural ?  Why  this  continual  striving  after  "  the  un- 
attained  and  dim  % "  why  these  anxious  endeavors, 
especially  of  late  years,  by  naturalists  and  philosophers 
of  various  schools  and  different  tendencies,  to  pene- 
trate what  one  of  them  calls  "  that  mystery  of  mys- 
teries," the  origin  of  species  ? 

To  this,  in  general,  sufficient  answer  maybe  found 
in  the  activity  of  the  human  intellect,  "  the  delirious 
yet  divine  desire  to  know,"  stimulated  as  it  has  been 
by  its  own  success  in  unveiling  the  laws  and  process- 
es of  inorganic  l^ature  ;  in  the  fact  that  the  principal 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  95 

triumplis  of  onr  age  in  physical  science  have  consisted 
in  tracing  connections  where  none  were  known  before, 
in  reducing  heterogeneous  phenomena  to  a  common 
cause  or  origin,  in  a  manner  quite  analogous  to  that 
of  the  reduction  of  supposed  independently  originated 
species  to  a  common  ultimate  origin — thus,  and  in 
various  other  ways,  largely  and  legitimately  extending 
the  domain  of  secondary  causes.  Surely  the  scientific 
mind  of  an  age  which  contemplates  the  solar  system 
as  evolved  from  a  common  revolving  fluid  mass — 
which,  through  experimental  research,  has  come  to  re- 
gard light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  chemical  aflin- 
ity,  and  mechanical  power  as  varieties  or  derivative 
and  convertible  forms  of  one  force,  instead  of  inde- 
pendent species — which  has  brought  the  so-called  ele- 
mentally kinds  of  matter,  such  as  the  metals,  into 
kindred  groups,  and  pertinently  raised  the  question, 
whether  the  members  of  each  group  may  not  be  mere 
varieties  of  one  species — and  which  speculates  steadily 
in  the  direction  of  the  ultimate  unity  of  matter,  of  a 
sort  of  prototype  or  simple  element  which  may  be  to 
the  ordinary  species  of  matter  what  the  Protozoa  or 
what  the  component  cells  of  an  organism  are  to  the 
higher  sorts  of  animals  and  plants — the  mind  of  such 
an  age  cannot  be  expected  to  let  the  old  belief  about 
species  pass  unquestioned.  It  will  raise  the  question, 
how  the  diverse  sorts  of  plants  and  animals  came  to 
be  as  they  are  and  where  they  are,  and  will  allow  that 
the  whole  inquiry  transcends  its  powers  only  when 
all  endeavors  have  failed.  Granting  the  origin  to  be 
supernatural,  or  miraculous  even,  will  not  arrest  the 
inquiry.     All  real  origination,  the  philosophers  will 


96  DARWINIANA. 

saj,  is  supernatural ;  their  very  question  is,  whether 
we  have  yet  gone  back  to  the  origin,  and  can  affirm 
that  the  present  forms  of  plants  and  animals  are  the 
primordial,  the  miraculously  created  ones.  And,  even 
if  they  admit  that,  they  will  still  inquire  into  the 
order  of  the  phenomena,  into  the  form  of  the  miracle. 
You  might  as  well  expect  the  child  to  grow  up  content 
with  what  it  is  told  about  the  advent  of  its  infant 
brother.  Indeed,  to  learn  that  the  new-comer  is  the 
gift  of  God,  far  from  lulling  inquiry,  only  stimulates 
speculation  as  to  how  the  precious  gift  was  bestowed. 
That  questioning  child  is  father  to  the  man — is  phi- 
losopher in  short-clothes. 

Since,  then,  questions  about  the  origin  of  species 
will  be  raised,  and  have  been  raised — and  since  the 
theorizings,  however  different  in  particulars,  all  pro- 
ceed upon  the  notion  that  one  species  of  plant  or 
animal  is  somehow  derived  from  another,  that  the  dif- 
ferent sorts  which  now  flourish  are  lineal  (or  unlineal) 
descendants  of  other  and  earlier  sorts — it  now  con- 
cerns us  to  ask.  What  are  the  grounds  in  ISTature,  the 
admitted  facts,  which  suggest  hjqDotheses  of  derivation 
in  some  shape  or  other  ?  Reasons  there  must  be,  and 
plausible  ones,  for  the  persistent  recurrence  of  theories 
upon  this  genetic  basis.  A  study  of  Darwin's  book, 
and  a  general  glance  at  the  present  state  of  the  natm^al 
sciences,  enable  us  to  gather  the  following  as  among 
the  most  suggestive  and  influential.  We  can  only 
enumerate  them  here,  without  much  indication  of 
their  particular  bearing.     There  is — 

1.  The  general  fact  of  variability,  and  the  general 
tendency  of  the  variety  to  propagate  its  like — ^the 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC,  97 

patent  facts  tliat  all  species  vary  more  or  less ;  tliat 
domesticated  plants  and  animals,  being  in  conditions 
favorable  to  the  production  and  preservation  of  varie- 
ties, are  apt  to  vary  widely ;  and  that,  by  interbreed- 
ing, any  variety  may  be  fixed  into  a  race,  that  is,  into 
a  variety  which  comes  trne  from  seed.  Many  such 
races,  it  is  allowed,  differ  from  each  other  in  structure 
and  appearance  as  wfdely  as  do  many  admitted  species ; 
and  it  is  practically  very  difficult,  even  impossible,  to 
draw  a  clear  line  between  races  and  species.  Witness 
the  human  races,  for  instance.  Wild  species  also  vary, 
perhaps  about  as  widely  as  those  of  domestication, 
though  in  different  ways.  Some  of  them  apparently 
vary  little,  others  moderately,  others  immodei-ately,  to 
the  great  bewilderment  of  systematic  botanists  and 
zoologists,  and  increasing  disagreement  as  to  whether 
various  forms  shall  be  held  to  be  original  species  or 
strong  varieties.  Moreover,  the  degree  to  which  the 
descendants  of  the  same  stock,  varying  in  different  di- 
rections, may  at  length  diverge,  is  unknown.  All  we 
know  is,  that  varieties  are  themselves  variable,  and  that 
very  diverse  forms  have  been  educed  from  one  stock. 
2.  Species  of  the  same  genus  are  not  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  equal  amounts  of  difference. 
There  is  diversity  in  this  respect  analogous  to  that  of 
the  varieties  of  a  polymorphous  species,  some  of  them 
slight,  others  extreme.  And  in  large  genera  the  un- 
equal resemblance  shows  itself  in  the  clustering  of 
the  species  around  several  types  or  central  species, 
like-  satellites  around  their  respective  planets.  Ob- 
viously suggestive  this  of  the  hypothesis  that  they 
were  satellites,  not  thrown  off  by  revolution,  like  the 


98  DARWimANA. 

moons  of  Jupiter,  Saturn,  and  onr  own  solitary  moon, 
but  gradually  and  peacefully  detached  by  divergent 
variation.  That  such,  closely-related  species  may  be 
only  varieties  of  higher  grade,  earlier  origin,  or  more 
favored  evolution,  is  not  a  very  violent  supposition. 
Anyhow,  it  was  a  supposition  sure  to  be  made. 

3.  The  actual  geographical  distribution  of  species 
upon  the  earth's  surface  tends  to  suggest  the  same 
notion.  For,  as  a  general  thing,  all  or  most  of  the 
species  of  a  peculiar  genus  or  other  type  are  grouped 
in  the  same  country,  or  occupy  continuous,  proximate, 
or  accessible  areas.  So  well  does  this  rule  hold,  so 
general  is  the  implication  that  kindred  species  are  or 
were  associated  geographically,  that  most  trustworthy 
naturalists,  quite  free  from  hypotheses  of  transmuta- 
tion, are  constantly  inferring  former  geographical 
continuity  between  parts  of  the  world  now  widely 
disjoined,  in  order  to  account  thereby  for  certain 
generic  similarities  among  their  inhabitants;  just  as 
philologists  infer  former  connection  of  races,  and  a 
parent  language,  to  account  for  generic  similarities 
among  existing  languages.  Yet  no  scientific  explana- 
tion has  been  offei'ed  to  account  for  the  geographical 
association  of  kindred  species,  except  the  hypothesis 
of  a  common  origin. 

4.  Here  the  fact  of  the  antiquity  of  creation,  and 
in  particular  of  the  present  kinds  of  the  earth's  inhab- 
itants, or  of  a  large  part  of  them,  comes  in  to  rebut 
the  objection  that  there  has  not  been  time  enough 
for  any  marked  diversification  of  living  things  through 
divergent  variation — not  time  enough  for  varieties  to 
have  diverged  into  what  we  call  species. 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETG.  99 

So  long  as  tlie  existing  species  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals were  tlioiight  to  have  originated  a  few  thousand 
years  ago,  and  without  predecessors,  there  was  no 
room  for  a  theory  of  derivation  of  one  sort  from  an- 
other, nor  time  enough  even  to  account  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  races  which  are  generally  believed  to 
have  diverged  from  a  common  stock.  Not  so  much 
that  ^YQ  or  six  thousand  years  was  a  short  allowance 
for  this ;  but  because  some  of  our  familiar  domesti- 
cated varieties  of  grain,  of  fowls,  and  of  other  animals, 
were  pictured  and  mummified  by  the  old  Egyptians 
more  than  half  that  number  of  years  ago,  if  not  ear- 
lier. Indeed,  perhaps  the  strongest  argument  for  the 
original  plurality  of  human  species  was  drawn  from 
the  identification  of  some  of  the  present  races  of  men 
upon  these  early  historical  monuments  and  records. 

But  this  very  extension  of  the  current  chronology, 
if  we  may  rely  upon  the  archaeologists,  removes  the 
difliculty  by  opening  up  a  longer  vista.  So  does  the 
discovery  in  Europe  of  remains  and  implements  of 
prehistoric  races  of  men,  to  whom  the  use  of  metals 
was  unknown — men  of  the  stone  age,  as  the  Scandina- 
vian archseologists  designate  them.  And  now,  "  axes 
and  knives  of  flint,  evidently  wrought  by  human  skill, 
are  found  in  beds  of  the  drift  at  Amiens  (also  in 
other  places,  both  in  France  and  England),  associated 
with  the  bones  of  extinct  species  of  animals."  These 
implements,  indeed,  were  noticed  twenty  years  ago; 
at  a  place  in  Suffolk  they  have  been  exhumed  from 
time  to  time  for  more  than  a  century;  but  the  fnll 
confirmation,  the  recognition  of  the  age  of  the  deposit 
in  which  the  implements  occur,  their  abundance,  and 


100  DARWINIANA. 

the  appreciation  of  tlieir  bearings  upon  most  interest- 
ing questions,  belong  to  tbe  present  time.  To  complete 
the  connection  of  these  primitive  people  with  the 
fossil  ages,  the  French  geologists,  we  are  told,  have 
now  "  found  these  axes  in  Picardj  associated  with  re- 
mains of  .Elejyhas  jp7nmigenius^  Rhinoceros  tichoj'hi- 
nuSy  EqiiiLS  fossilis^  and  an  extinct  species  of  Bos^  ^ 
In  plain  language,  these  workers  in  flint  lived  in  the 
time  of  the  mammoth,  of  a  rhinoceros  now  extinct,  and 
along  with  horses  and  cattle  unlike  any  now  existing 
— specifically  different,  as  naturalists  say,  from  those 
with  which  man  is  now  associated.  Their  connection 
with  existing  human  races  may  perhaps  be  traced 
through  the  intervening  people  of  the  stone  age,  who 
were  succeeded  by  the  people  of  the  bronze  age,  and 
these  by  workers  in  iron.''  I^ow,  various  evidence 
carries  back  the  existence  of  many  of  the  present  low- 
er species  of  animals,  and  probably  of  a  larger  nimiber 
of  plants,  to  the  same  drift  period.  All  agree  that 
this  was  very  many  thousand  years  ago.  Agassiz  tells 
us  that  the  same  species  of  polyps  which  are  now 
building  coral  walls  around  the  present  peninsula  of 
Florida  actually  made  that  peninsula,  and  have  been 
building  there  for  many  thousand  centuries. 

5.  The  overlapping  of  existing  and  extinct  species, 
and  the  seemingly  gradual  transition  of  the  life  of  the 
drift  period  into  that  of  the  present,  may  be  turned  to 

1  See  "  Correspondence  of  M.  Nickles,"  in  American  Journal  of  Sci- 
ence and  Arts,  for  March,  1860. 

2  See  Morlot,  "  Some  General  Views  on  Archaeology,"  in  American 
Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,  for  January,  1860,  translated  from  "  Bul- 
letin de  la  Society  Vaudoise,"  1859. 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  101 

tlie  same  account.  Mammoths,  mastodons,  and  Irish 
elks,  now  extinct,  must  have  lived  down  to  human,  if 
not  almost  to  historic  times.  Perhaps  the  last  dodo 
did  not  long  outlive  his  huge  ISTew  Zealand  kindred. 
The  auroch,  once  the  companion  of  mammoths,  still 
smwives,  but  owes  his  present  and  precarious  existence 
to  man's  care.  J^ow,  nothing  that  we  know  of  forbids 
the  hypothesis  that  some  new  species  have  been  inde- 
pendently and  supernaturally  created  within  the  period 
which  other  species  have  survived.  Some  may  even 
believe  that  man  was  created  in  the  days  of  the  mam- 
moth, became  extinct,  and  was  recreated  at  a  later  date. 
But  why  not  say  the  same  of  the  auroch,  contempo- 
rary both  of  the  old  man  and  of  the  new  ?  Still  it  is 
more  natural,  if  not  inevitable,  to  infer  that,  if  the 
aurochs  of  that  olden  time  were  the  ancestors  of  the 
aurochs  of  the  Lithuanian  forests,  so  likewise  were  the 
men  of  that  age  the  ancestors  of  the  present  human 
races.  Then,  whoever  concludes  that  these  primitive 
makers  of  rude  flint  axes  and  knives  were  the  ancestors 
of  the  better  workmen  of  the  succeeding  stone  age, 
and  these  again  of  the  succeeding  artificers  in  brass  and 
iron,  will  also  be  likely  to  sujDpose  that  the  Eqxtus  and 
Bos  of  that  time,  different  though  they  be,  were  the 
remote  progenitors  of  our  own  horses  and  cattle.  In 
all  candor  we  must  at  least  concede  that  sucn  consid- 
erations suggest  a  genetic  descent  from  the  drift  period 
down  to  the  present,  and  allow  time  enough — if  time  is 
of  any  account — for  variation  and  natural  selection  to 
work  out  some  appreciable  results  in  the  way  of  diver- 
gence into  races,  or  even  into  so-called  species.  What- 
ever might  have  been  thought,  when  geological  time 


102  DARWINIANA. 

was  supposed  to  be  separated  from  the  present  era  by 
a  clear  line,  it  is  now  certain  that  a  gradual  replace- 
ment of  old  forms  by  new  ones  is'  strongly  suggestive 
of  some  mode  of  origination  which  may  still  be  opera- 
tive. When  species,  like  individuals,  were  found  to 
die  out  one  by  one,  and  apparently  to  come  in  one  by 
one,  a  theory  for  what  Owen  sonorously  calls  "the 
continuous  operation  of  the  ordained  becoming  of  liv- 
ing things  "  could  not  be  far  off. 

That  all  such  theories  should  take  the  form  of  a 
derivation  of  the  new  from  the  old  seems  to  be  inevi- 
table, perhaps  from  our  inability  to  conceive  of  any 
other  line  of  secondary  causes  in  this  connection. 
Owen  himself  is  apparently  in  travail  with  some  trans- 
mutation theory  of  his  own  conceiving,  which  may 
yet  see  the  light,  although  Darwin's  came  first  to  the 
birth.  Different  as  the  two  theories  will  probably 
be,  they  cannot  fail  to  exhibit  that  fundamental  re- 
semblance in  this  respect  which  betokens  a  commu- 
nity of  origin,  a  common  foundation  on  the  general 
facts  and  the  obvious  suggestions  of  modern  science. 
Indeed — to  turn  the  point  of  a  pungent  simile  directed 
against  Darwin — the  difference  between  the  Darwin- 
ian and  the  Owenian  hypotheses  may,  after  all,  be 
only  that  between  homoeopathic  and  heroic  doses  of 
•  the  same  drug. 

If  theories  of  derivation  could  only  stop  here,  con- 
tent with  explaining  the  diversification  and  succession 
of  species  between  the  tertiary  period  and  the  present 
tune,  through  natural  agencies  or  secondary  causes 
still  in  operation,  we  fancy  they  would  not  be  generally 
or  violently  objected  to  by  the  savants  of  the  present 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  103 

day.  But  it  is  liard,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  a  stop- 
ping-place. Some  of  tlie  facts  or  accepted  conclusions 
already  referred  to,  and  several  others,  of  a  more  gen- 
eral cliaracter,  wliicli  must  be  taken  into  tlie  account, 
impel  the  theory  onward  with  accumulated  force. 
Viy^es  (not  to  say  vii'us)  acquirit  eundo.  The  theory 
hitches  on  wonderfully  well  to  Lyell's  uniformitarian 
theory  in  geology — that  the  thing  that  has  been  is  the 
thing  that  is  and  shall  be — that  the  natural  operations 
now  going  on  will  account  for  all  geological  changes  in 
a  quiet  and  easy  way,  only  give  them  time  enough,  so 
connecting  the  present  and  the  proximate  with  the 
farthest  past  by  almost  imperceptible  gradations — a 
view  which  finds  large  and  increasing,  if  not  general, 
acceptance  in  physical  geology,  and  of  which  Darwin's 
theory  is  the  natural  complement. 

So  the  Darwinian  theory,  once  getting  a  foothold, 
marches  boldly  on,  follows  the  supposed  near  ances- 
tors of  our  present  species  farther  and  yet  farther  back 
into  the  dim  past,  and  ends  with  aij  analogical  infer- 
ence which  "  makes  the  whole  world  kin."  As  we  said 
at  the  beginning,  this  upshot  discomposes  us.  Several 
features  of  the  theory  have  an  uncanny  look.  They 
may  prove  to  be  innocent :  but  their  first  aspect  is  suspi- 
cious, and  high  authorities  pronounce  the  whole  thing 
to  be  positively  mischievous.  In  this  dilemma  we  are 
going  to  take  advice.  Following  the  bent  of  our  preju- 
dices, and  hoping  to  fortify  these  by  new  and  strong 
arguments,  we  are  going  now  to  read  the  principal 
reviews  which  undertake  to  demolish  the  theory — 
with  what  result  our  readers  shall  be  duly  informed. 


104  DARWINIANA. 

II. 

"  I  can  entertain  no  doubt,  after  the  most  deliberate  study 
and  dispassionate  judgment  of  which  I  am  capable,  that  the 
view  which  most  naturalists  entertain,  and  which  I  formerly 
entertained,  namely,  that  each  species  has  been  independently 
created,  is  erroneous.  I  am  fully  convinced  that  species  are 
not  immutable  ;  but  that  those  belonging  to  what  are  called  the 
same  genera  are  lineal  descendants  of  some  other  and  generally 
extinct  species,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  acknowledged  varie- 
ties of  any  one  species  are  the  descendants  of  that  species. 
Furthermore,  I  am  convinced  that  itfatural  Selection  has  been 
the  main,  but  not  exclusive,  means  of  modification." 

This  is  the  kernel  of  the  new  theory,  the  Dar- 
winian creed,  as  recited  at  the  close  of  the  introduc- 
tion to  the  remarkable  book  under  consideration. 
The  questions,  "  What  will  he  do  with  it  ? "  and 
"  How  far  will  he  carry  it  ? "  the  author  answers  at 
the  close  of  the  volume  : 

"  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  theory  of  descent  with  modifica- 
tion embraces  all  the.merabers  of  the  same  class."  Furthermore, 
"I  believe  that  all  animals  have  descended  from  at  most  only 
four  or  five  progenitors,  and  plants  from  an  equal  or  lesser 
number." 

Seeing  that  analogy  as  strongly  suggests  a  further 
step  in  the  same  direction,  while  he  protests  that 
"  analogy  may  be  a  deceitful  guide,"  yet  he  follows 
its  inexorable  leading  to  the  inference  that — 

"Probably  all  the  organic  beings  which  have  ever  lived  on 
this  earth  have  descended  from  some  one  primordial  form,  into 
which  life  was  first  breathed."  *     • 

*  Page  484,  English  edition.  In  the  new  American  edition  {vide 
Supplement,  pp.  431,  432)  the  principal  analogies  which  suggest  the 


NATURAL  SELEGTIOF,  ETC.  105 

In  tlie  first  extract  we  liave  the  tliin  end  of  tlie 
wedge  driven'  a  little  way ;  in  the  last,  the  wedge 
driven  home. 

We  have  already  sketched  some  of  the  reasons 
suggestive  of  such  a  theory  of  derivation  of  species, 
reasons  which  gave  it  plausibility,  and  even  no  small 
probability,  as  applied  to  our  actual  world  and  to 
changes  occui'ring  since  the  latest  tertiary  period. 
We  are  well  pleased  at  this  moment  to  find  that  the 
conclusions  we  were  arriving  at  in  this  respect  are 
sustained  by  the  very  high  authority  and  impartial 
judgment  of  Pictet,  the  Swiss  paleontologist.  In  his 
review  of  Darwin's  book  * — the  fairest  and  most  ad- 
mirable opposing  one  that  has  appeared — he  freely 
accepts  that  ensenible  of  natural  operations  which 
Darwin  impersonates  under  the  now  familiar  name 
of  l^atural  Selection,  allows  that  the  eiq^osition 
throughout  the  first  chapters  seems  "  a  la  fois  jyt'u- 
dent  et  fort^''  and  is  disposed  to  accept  the  whole 
argument  in  its  foundations,  that  is,  so  far  as  it  re- 
lates to  what  is  now  going  on,  or  has  taken  place  in 
the  present  geological  period — which  period  he  car- 
ries i)ack  through  the  diluvial  epoch  to  the  borders 
of  the  tertiary.^     Pictet  accordingly  admits  that  the 


extreme  view  are  referred  to,  and  the  remark  is  appended  :  "But  this 
inference  is  chiefly  grounded  on  analogy,  and  it  is  immaterial  whether 
or  not  it  be  accepted.  The  case  is  different  with  the  members  of  each 
great  class,  as  the  Vertebrata  or  Articulata ;  for  here  we  have  in  the 
laws  of  homology,  embryology,  etc,  some  distinct  evidence  that  all 
have  descended  from  a  single  primordial  parent." 

^  In  Biblioiheque  Universelle  de  Geneve^  March,  1860. 

^  This  we  learn  from  his  very  interesting  article,  "  De  la  Question 


106  DARWIFIANA. 

tlieoiy  will  very  well  account  for  the  origination  by 
divergence  of  nearly-related  species,  whether  within 
the  present  period  or  in  remoter  geological  times ;  a 
very  natural  view  for  him  to  take,  since  he  appears 
to  have  reached  and  published,  several  years  ago,  the 
pregnant  conclusion  that  there  most  probably  was 
some  material  connection  between  the  closely-related 
species  of  two  successive  faunas,  and  that  the  numer- 
ous close  species,  whose  limits  are  so  difficult  to  de- 
termine, were  not  all  created  distinct  and  indepen- 
dent. But  while  thus  accepting,  or  ready  to  accept, 
the  basis  of  Darwin's  theory,  and  all  its  legitimate 
direct  inferences,  he  rejects  the  ultimate  conclusions, 
brings  some  weighty  arguments  to  bear  against  them, 
and  is  evidently  convinced  that  he  can  draw  ii  clear 
line  between  the  sound  inferences,  which  he  favors, 
and  the  unsound  or  unwarranted  theoretical  deduc- 
tions, which  he  rejects.     We  hope  he  can. 

This  raises  the  question,  Why  does  Darwin  press 
his  theory  to  these  extreme  conclusions  ?  Why  do 
all  hypotheses  of  derivation  converge  so  inevitably  to 
one  ultimate  point  ?  Having  already  considered  some 
of  the  reasons  w^hich  suggest  or  support  the  theory  at 
its  outset — which  may  carry  it  as  far  as  such  sound 
and  experienced  naturalists  as  Pictet  allow  that  it  may 
be  true — perhaps  as  far  as  Darwin  himself  unfolds  it 
in  the  introductory  proposition  cited  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  article — we  may  now  inquire  after  the 

de  I'Homme  Fossile,"  in  the  same  (March)  number  of  the  Bihliotheque 
Universeile.  {See,  also,  the  same  author's  "  Note  sur  la  Periode  Qua- 
ternaire  ou  Diluvienne,  consideree  dans  ses  Kapports  avec  I'Epoque 
Actuelle,"  in  the  number  for  August,  1860,  of  the  same  periodical.) 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  107 

motives  which  impel  the  theorist  so  much  farther. 
Here  proofs,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  are  not 
to  be  had.  "We  are  beyond  the  region  of  demonstra- 
tion, and  have  only  probabilities  to  consider.  What 
are  these  probabilities?  What  work  will  this  hy- 
pothesis do  to  establish  a  claim  to  be  adopted  in  its 
completeness  %  Why  should  a  theory  which  may 
plausibly  enough '  account  for  the  diversification  of 
the  species  of  each  special  type  or  genus  be  expanded 
into  a  general  system  for  the  origination  or  successive 
diversification  of  all  species,  and  all  special  types  or 
forms,  from  four  or  five  remote  primordial  forms,  or 
perhaps  from  one  \  We  accept  the  theory  of  gravi- 
tation because  it  explains  all  the  facts  we  know,  and 
bears  all  the  tests  that  we  can  put  it  to.  We  inchne 
to  accept  the  nebular  hypothesis,  for  similar  reasons ; 
not  because  it  is  proved — thus  far  it  is  incapable  of 
;proof — but  because  it  is  a  natural  theoretical  deduction 
from  accepted  physical  laws,  is  thoroughly  congruous 
with  the  facts,  and  because  its  assumption  serves  to 
connect  and  harmonize  these  into  one  probable  and 
consistent  whole.  Can  the  derivative  hypothesis  be 
maintained  and  carried  out  into  a  system  on  similar 
grounds  ?  If  so,  however  unproved,  it  would  appear 
to  be  a  tenable  hypothesis,  which  is  all  that  its  author 
ought  now  to  claim.  Such  hypotheses  as,  from  the 
conditions  of  the  case,  can  neither  be  proved  nor  dis- 
proved by  direct  evidence  or  experiment,  are  to  be 
tested  only  indirectly,  and  therefore  imperfectly,  by 
trying  their  power  to  harmonize  the  known  facts,  and 
to  account  for  what  is  otherwise  unaccountable.  So 
the  question  comes  to  this  :  AVhat  will  an  hypothesis 


108  DARWmiANA. 

of  tlie  derivation  of  species  explain  which  tlie  opjDos- 
ing  view  leaves  nnexplainecl  ? 

Questions  these  which  ought  to  be  entertained 
before  we  take  up  the  arguments  which  have  been 
advanced  against  this  theory.  "We  can  barely  glance 
at  some  of  the  considerations  which  Darwin  adduces,. 
or  will  be  sure  to  adduce  in  the  future  and  fuller 
exposition  which  is  promised.  To  display  them  in  such 
wise  as  to  indoctrinate  the  unscientific  reader  would 
require  a  volume.  Merely  to  refer  to  them  in  the- 
most  general  terms  would  sufiice  for  those  familiar 
with  scientific  matters,  but  would  scarcely  enlighten 
those  who  are  not.  Wherefore  let  these  trust  the  im- 
partial Pictet,  who  freely  admits  that,  "in  the  absence 
of  sufficient  direct  proofs  to  justify  the  possibility  of 
his  hypothesis,  Mr.  Darwin  relies  upon  indirect  proofs, 
the  bearing  of  which  is  real  and  incontestable ; "  who 
concedes  that  "  his  theory  accords  very  well  with  the 
great  facts  of  comparative  anatomy  and  zoology — 
comes  in  admirably  to  explain  unity  of  composition  of 
organisms,  also  to  explain  rudimentary  and  representa- 
tive organs,  and  the  natui'al  series  of  genera  and  species 
— equally  corresponds  with  many  paleontological  data 
— agrees  well  with  the  specific  resemblances  which  exist 
between  two  successive  faunas,  with  the  parallelism 
which  is  sometimes  observed  between  the  series  of 
paleontological  succession  and  of  embryonal  develop- 
ment," etc. ;  and  finally,  although  he  does  not  accept 
the  theory  in  these  results,  he  allows  that  "  it  appears 
to  offer  the  best  means  of  explaining  the  manner  in 
which  organized  beings  were  produced  in  epochs  an- 
terior to  our  own." 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  109 

What  more  than  this  could  be  said  for  such  an 
hypothesis?  Here,  probably,  is  its  charm,  and  its 
strong  hold  upon  the  speculative  mind.  Unproven 
though  it  be,  and  Q^m^o^xo^^  jyi'ima  facie  with  cumula- 
tive improbabilities  as  it  proceeds,  yet  it  singularly 
accords  with  great  classes  of  facts  otherwise  insulated 
and  enigmatic,  and  explains  many  things  which  are 
thus  far  utterly  inexplicable  upon  any  other  scientific 
assumption. 

We  have  said  that  Darwin's  hypothesis  is  the  natu- 
ral complement  to  Lyell's  uniformitarian  theory  in 
physical  geology.  It  is  for  the  organic  world  what  that 
is  for  the  inorganic ;  and  the  accepters  of  the  latter 
stand  in  a  position  from  which  to  regard  the  former  in 
the  most  favorable  light.  Wherefore  the  rumor  that 
the  cautions  Lyell  himself  has  adopted  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis  need  not  surprise  us.  The  two  views  are 
made  for  each  other,  and,  like  the  two  counterpart  pic- 
tm-es  for  the  stereoscope,  when  brought  together,  com- 
bine into  one  apparently  solid  whole. 

If  we  allow,  with  Pictet,  that  Darwin's  theory 
will  very  well  serve  for  all  that  concerns  the  present 
epoch  of  the  world's  history — an  epoch  in  which 
this  renowned  paleontologist  includes  the  diluvial  or 
quaternary  period — then  Darwin's  first  and  foremost 
need  in  his  onward  course  is  a  practicable  road  from 
this  into  and  through  the  tertiary  period,  the  interven- 
ing region  between  the  comparatively  near  and  the 
far  remote  past.  Here  Lyell's  doctrine  paves  the  way, 
by  showing  that  in  the  physical  geology  there  is  no 
general  or  absolute  break  between  the  two,  probably 
no  greater  between  the  latest  tertiary  and  the  quater- 


110  DARWmiANA. 

naiy  period  than  between  tlie  latter  and  the  present 
time.  So  far,  the  Lyellian  view  is,  we  suppose,  gen- 
erally concurred  in.  It  is  largely  admitted  that  nu- 
merous tertiary  species  have  continued  down  into  the 
quaternary,  and  many  of  them  to  the  present  time.  A 
goodly  percentage  of  the  earlier  and  nearly  half  of  the 
later  tertiary  moUusca,  according  to  Des  Hayes,  Lyell, 
and,  if  we  mistake  not,  Bronn,  still  live.  This  identifi- 
cation, however,  is  now^  questioned  by  a  naturalist  of 
the  very  highest  authority.  But,  in  its  bearings  on  the 
new  theory,  the  point  here  turns  not  upon  absolute 
identity  so  much  as  upon  close  resemblance.  For  those 
who,  with  Agassiz,  doubt  the  specific  identity  in  any 
of  these  cases,  and  those  who  say,  with  Pictet,  that 
"the  later  tertiary  deposits  contain  in  general  the 
debris  of  species  i^ery  nearly  related  to  those  which 
still  exist,  belonging  to  the  same  genera,  but  specifically 
different,"  may  also  agree  with  Pictet,  that  the  nearly- 
related  species  of  successive  faunas  must  or  may  have 
had  "  a  material  connection."  But  the  only  material 
connection  that  we  have  an  idea  of  in  such  a  case  is  a 
genealogical  one.  And  the  supposition  of  a  genealogi- 
cal connection  is  surely  not  unnatural  in  such  cases — 
is  demonstrably  the  natural  one  as  respects  all  those 
tertiary  species  which  experienced  naturalists  have 
pronounced  to  be  identical  with  existing  ones,  but 
which  others  now  deem  distinct.  For  to  identify  the 
two  is  the  same  thing  as  to  conclude  the  one  to  be  the 
ancestor  of  the  other.  No  doubt  there  are  differences 
between  the  tertiary  and  the  present  individuals,  differ- 
ences equally  noticed  by  both  classes  of  naturalists,  but 
differently  estimated.     By  the  one  these  are  deemed 


NATURAL  SELECTION-,  ETC.  \l\ 

quite  compatible,  b  j  the  other  incompatible,  with,  com- 
munity of  origin.  But  who  can  tell  us  what  amount 
of  difference  is  com.jMtihle  with  community  of  origin  f 
This  is  the  very  question  at  issue,  and  one  to  be  settled 
by  observation  alone.  Who  would  have  thought  that 
the  peach  and  the  nectarine  came  from  one  stock? 
But,  this  being  j)roved,  is  it  now  very  improbable  that 
both  were  derived  from  the  almond,  or  from  some 
common  amygdaline  progenitor?  "Who  would  have 
thought  that  the  cabbage,  cauliflower,  broccoli,  kale, 
and  kohlrabi,  are  derivatives  of  one  species,  and  rape 
or  colza,  turnip,  and  probably  ruta-baga,  of  another 
species  ?  And  who  that  is  convinced  of  this  can  long 
undoubtingly  hold  the  original  distinctness  of  turnips 
from  cabbages  as  an  article  of  faith?  On  scientific 
grounds  may  not  a  primordial  cabbage  or  rape  be  as- 
sumed as  the  ancestor  of  all  the  cabbage  races,  on  much 
the  same  ground  that  we  assume  a  common  ancestry 
for  the  diversified  human  races  ?  If  all  our  breeds  of 
cattle  came  from  one  stock,  why  not  this  stock  from 
the  auroch,  which  has  had  all  the  time  between  the 
diluvial  and  the  historic  periods  in  which  to,  set  off  a 
variation  perhaps  no  greater  than  the  difference  be- 
tween some  sorts  of  domestic  cattle  ? 

That  considerable  differences  are  often  discernible 
between  tertiary  individuals  and  their  supposed  de- 
scendants of  the  present  day  affords  no  argument 
against  Darwin's  theory,  as  has  been  rashly  thought, 
but  is  decidedly  in  its  favor.  If  the  identification 
were  so  perfect  that  no  more  differences  were  ob- 
servable between  the  tertiary  and  the  recent  shells 
than  between  various  individuals  of  either,  then  Dar- 


112  DARWimAI^A. 

win's  opponents,  who  argue  the  immutability  of  species 
from  the  ibises  and  cats  preserved  by  the  ancient 
Eg}^3tians  being  just  like  those  of  the  present  day, 
could  triumphantly  add  a  few  hundred  thousand  years 
more  to  the  length  of  the  experiment  and  to  the 
force  of  their  argument. 

As  the  facts  stand,  it  appears  that,  while  some  ter- 
tiary forms  are  essentially  undistinguishable  from  ex- 
isting ones,  others  are  the  same  with  a  difference, 
which  is  judged  not  to  be  specific  or  aboriginal ;  and 
yet  others  show  somewhat  greater  differences,  such  as 
are  scientifically  expressed  by  calling  them  marked 
varieties,  or  else  doubtful  species;  while  others,  dif- 
fering a  little  more,  are  confidently  termed  distinct, 
but  nearly-related  species.  Now,  is  not  all  this  a 
question  of  degree,  of  mere  gradation  of  difference? 
And  is  it  at  all  likely  that  these  several  gradations 
came  to  be  established  in  two  totally  different  ways — 
some  of  them  (though  naturalists  can't  agree  which) 
through  natural  variation,  or  other  secondary  cause, 
and  some  by  original  creation,  without  secondary 
cause  ?  We  have  seen  that  the  judicious  Pictet  an- 
swers such  questions  as  Darwin  would  have  him  do, 
in  affirming  that,  in  all  probability,  the  nearly-related 
species  of  two  successive  faunas  were  materially  con- 
nected, and  that  contemporaneous  species,  similarly 
resembling  each  other,  were  not  all  created  so,  but 
have  become  so.  This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that 
species  (using  the  term  as  all  naturalists  do,  and  must 
continue  to  employ  the  word)  have  only  a  relative, 
not  an  absolute  fixity ;  that  differences  fully  equiva- 
lent to  what  are  held  to  be  specific  may  arise  in  the 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  II3 

course  of  time,  so  tliat  one  species  may  at  length,  be 
naturally  replaced  by  another  species  a  good  deal  like 
it,  or  may  be  diversified  into  two,  three,  or  more 
species,  or  forms  as  different  as  species.  This  con- 
cedes all  that  Darwin  has  a  right  to  ask,  all  that  he 
can  directly  infer  from  evidence.  We  must  add  that 
it  affords  a  locus  standi^  more  or  less  tenable,  for  in- 
f  ening  more. 

Here  another  geological  consideration  comes  in  to 
help  on  this  inference.  The  species  of  the  later  ter- 
•  tiary  period  for  the  most  part  not  only  resembled 
those  of  our  days — many  of  them  so  closely  as  to  sug- 
gest an  absolute  continuity — but  also  occupied  in  gen- 
eral the  same  regions  that  their  relatives  occupy  now. 
The  same  may  be  said,  though  less  specially,  of  the 
earlier  tertiary  and  of  the  later  secondary;  but  there 
is  less  and  less  localization  of  forms  as  we  recede,  yet 
some  localization  even  in  palgeozoic  times.  While  in 
the  secondary  period  one  is  struck  with  the  similarity 
of  forms  and  the  identity  of  many  of  the  species 
which  flourished  apparently  at  the  same  time  in  all  or 
in  the  most  widely-separated  parts  of  the  world,  in 
the  tertiary  epoch,  on  the  contrary,  along  with  the 
increasing  specialization  of  climates  and  their  approxi- 
mation to  the  present  state,  we  find  abundant  evi- 
dence of  increasing  localization  of  orders,  genera,  and 
species ;  and  this  localization  strikingly  accords  with 
the  present  geographical  distribution  of  the  same 
groups  of  species.  Where  the  imputed  forefathers 
lived,  their  relatives  and  supposed  descendants  now 
flourish.  All  the  actual  classes  of  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms  were  represented  in  the  tertiary 


114  BARWmiANA. 

faunas  and  floras,  and  in  nearly  the  same  propoi-tions 
and  the  same  diversities  as  at  present.  The  faunas  of 
what  is  now  Europe,  Asia,  America,  and  Australia, 
differed  from  each  other  much  as  they  now  differ :  in 
fact — according  to  Adolphe  Brongniart,  whose  state- 
ments we  here  condense^ — the  inhabitants  of  these 
different  regions  appear  for  the  most  part  to  have  ac- 
quired, before  the  close  of  the  tertiary  period,  the 
characters  which  essentially  distinguish  their  existing 
faunas.  The  Eastern  Continent  had  then,  as  now,  its 
great  pachyderms,  elephants,  rhinoceros,  hippopota- 
mus; South  America,  its  armadillos,  sloths,  and  ant- 
eaters  ;  Australia,  a  crowd  of  marsupials  ;  and  the  very 
strange  birds  of  New  Zealand  had  predecessors  of  simi- 
lar strangeness.  Everywhere  the  same  geographical 
distribution  as  now,  with  a  difference  in  the  particular 
area,  as  respects  the  northern  portion  of  the  continents, 
answering  to  a  warmer  climate  then  than  ours,  such 
as  allowed  species  of  hippopotamus,  rhinoceros,  and 
elephant,  to  range  even  to  the  regions  now  inhabited 
by  the  reindeer  and  the  musk-ox,  and  with  the  seri- 
ous disturbing  intervention  of  the  glacial  period  with- 
in a  comparatively  recent  time.  Let  it  be  noted  also 
that  those  tertiary  species  which  have  continued  with 
little  change  down  to  our  days  are  the  marine  animals 
of  the  lower  grades,  especially  moUusca.  Their  low 
organization,  moderate  sensibility,  and  the  simple  con- 
ditions of  an  existence  in  a  medium  like  the  ocean, 
not  subject  to  great  variation  and  incapable  of  sudden 
change,  may  well  account  for  their  continuance; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  more  intense,  however 

^  In  Compfes  Rendus,  Academie  des  Sciences,  February  2,  1857. 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  II5 

gradual,  climatic  vicissitudes  on  land,  which  have 
driven  all  tropical  and  subtropical  forms  out  of  the 
higher  latitudes  and  assigned  to  them  their  actual 
limits,  would  be  almost  sure  to  extinguish  such  huge 
and  unwieldy  animals  as  mastodons,  mammoths,  and 
the  like,  whose  power  of  enduring  altered  circum- 
stances must  have  been  small. 

This  general  replacement  of  the  tertiary  species 
of  a  country  by  others  so  much  like  them  is  a  note- 
worthy fact.  The  hypothesis  of  the  independent 
creation  of  all  species,  irrespective  of  their  antece- 
dents, leaves  this  fact  just  as  mysterious  as  is  creation 
itself ;  that  of  derivation  undertakes  to  account  for  it. 
Whether  it  satisfactorily  does  so  or  not,  it  must  be 
allowed  that  the  facts  well  accord  with  that  hypothe- 
sis. The  same  may  be  said  of  another  conclusion, 
namely,  that  the  geological  succession  of  animals  and 
plants  appears  to  correspond  in  a  general  way  with 
their  relative  standing  or  rank  in  a  natural  system  of 
classification.  It  seems  clear  that,  though  no  one  of 
the  grand  tijjpes  of  the  animal  kingdom  can  be  traced 
back  farther  than  the  rest,  yet  the  lower  classes  long 
preceded  the  higher;  that  there  has  been  on  the 
whole  a  steady  progression  within  each  class  and 
order ;  and  that  the  highest  plants  and  animals  have 
appeared  only  in  relatively  modern  times.  It  is  only, 
however,  in  a  broad  sense  that  this  generalization  is 
now  thought  to  hold  good.  It  encounters  many  ap- 
parent exceptions,  and  sundry  real  ones.  So  far  as 
the  rule  holds,  all  is  as  it  should  be  upon  an  hypothe- 
sis of  derivation. 

The  rule  has  its  exceptions.    But,  curiously  enough, 


IIG  DAEWINIANA.     ■ 

tlie  most  striking  class  of  exceptions,  if  sncli  tliey  be, 
seems  to  ns  even  more  favorable  to  tlie  doctrine  of 
derivation  than  is  the  general  rule  of  a  pm-e  and  sim- 
ple ascending  gradation.  We  refer  to  what  Agassiz 
calls  proplietic  and  sjnitlietic  types;  for  whicli  the 
former  name  may  suffice,  as  the  difference  between 
the  two  is  evanescent. 

"It  has  been  noticed,"  writes  our  great  zoologist,  "  that  cer- 
tain types,  which  are  frequently  prominent  among  the  repre- 
sentatives of  past  ages,  combine  in  their  structure  peculiarities 
which  at  later  periods  are  only  observed  separately  in  different, 
distinct  types.  Sauroid  fishes  before  reptiles,  Pterodactyles  be- 
fore birds,  Ichthyosauri  before  dolphins,  etc.  There  are  entire 
families,  of  nearly  every  class  of  animals,  which  in  the  state 
of  their  perfect  development  exemplify  such  prophetic  rela- 
tions. .  .  .  The  sauroid  fisbes  of  the  past  geological  ages  are  an 
example  of  this  kind.  These  fishes,  which  preceded  the  ap- 
pearance of  reptiles,  present  a  combination  of  ichthyic  and 
reptilian  characters  not  to  be  found  in  the  true  members  of  this 
class,  which  form  its  bulk  at  present.  The  Pterodactyles,  which 
preceded  the  class  of  birds,  and  the  Ichthyosauri,  which  pre- 
ceded the  Cetacea,  are  other  examples  of  such  prophetic 
types." — (Agassiz,  "  Contributions,  Essay  on  Classification," 
p.  117.) 

Now,  these  reptile-like  fishes,  of  which  gar-pikes 
are  the  living  representatives,  thongh  of  earlier  ap- 
pearance, are  admittedly  of  higher  rank  than  common 
fishes.  They  dominated  nntil  reptiles  appeared,  when 
they  mostly  gave  place  to  (or,  as  the  derivationists 
will  insist,  were  resolved  by  divergent  variation  and 
natural  selection  into)  common  fishes,  destitute  of  rep- 
tilian characters,  and  saurian  reptiles — the  intermedi- 
ate grades,  which,  according  to  a  familiar  piscine  say- 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETG.  I17 

ing,  are  "neither  fisli,  flesh,  nor  good  red-herring," 
being  eliminated  and  extinguished  by  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  struggle  for  existence  which  Darwin  so 
aptly  portrays.  And  so,  perhaps,  of  the  other  pro- 
phetic types.  Here  type  and  antitype  correspond. 
If  these  are  true  prophecies,  we  need  not  wonder  that 
some  who  read  them  in  Agassiz's  book  will  read  their 
fulfillment  in  Darwin's. 

^ote  also,  in  this  connection,  that  along  with  a 
wonderful  persistence  of  type,  with  change  of  species, 
genera,  orders,  etc.,  from  formation  to  formation,  no 
species  and  no  higher  group  which  has  once  unequivo- 
cally died  out  ever  afterward  reappears.  Why  is  this, 
but  that  the  link  of  generation  has  been  sundered  ? 
Why,  on  the  hypothesis  of  independent  originations, 
w^ere  not  failing  species  recreated,  either  identically  or 
with  a  difference,  in  regions  eminently  adapted  to 
their  well-being  ?  To  take  a  striking  case.  That  no 
part  of  the  world  now  offers  more  suitable  conditions 
for  wild  horses  and  cattle  than  the  pg^iipas  and  other 
plains  of  South  America,  is  shown  by  the  facility  with 
which  they  have  there  run  wild  and  enormously  mul- 
tiplied, since  introduced  from  the  Old  World  not  long 
ago.  There  was  no  wild  American  stock.  Yet  in 
the  times  of  the  mastodon  and  megatherium,  at  the 
dawn  of  the  present  period,  wild-horses — certainly 
very  much  like  the  existing  horse — roamed  over  those 
plains  in  abundance.  On  the  principle  of  original  and 
'direct  created  adaptation  of  species  to  climate  and 
other  conditions,  why  were  they  not  reproduced,  when, 
after  the  colder  intervening  era,  those  regions  became 
again  eminently  adapted  to  such  animals  ?  Why,  but 
6 


118  DARWmiAFA. 

because,  by  tlieir  complete  extinction  in  Soiitli  Amer- 
ica, the  line  of  descent  was  there  utterly  broken  ? 
Upon  the  ordinary  hypothesis,  there  is  no  scientific 
explanation  possible  of  this  series  of  facts,  and  of 
many  others  like  them.  Upon  the  new  hypothesis, 
"  the  succession  of  the  same  tj^Des  of  structure  within 
the  same  areas  during  the  later  geological  periods 
ceases  to  be  mysterious,  and  is  simply  explained  by 
inheritance."     Their  cessation  is  failure  of  issue. 

Along  with  these  considerations  the  fact  (alluded 
to  on  page  98)  should  be  remembered  that,  as  a  general 
thing,  related  species  of  the  present  age  are  geographi- 
cally associated.  The  larger  part  of  the  plants,  and 
still  more  of  the  animals,  of  each  separate  country  are 
peculiar  to  it ;  and,  as  most  species  now  flourish  over 
the  graves  of  their  by-gone  relatives  of  former  ages, 
80  they  now  dwell  among  or  accessibly  near  their 
kindred  species. 

Here  also  comes  in  that  general  "  p>arallelism  be- 
tween the  order  of  succession  of  animals  and  plants 
in  geological  times,  and  the  gradation  among  their 
living  representatives  "  from  low  to  highly  organized, 
from  simple  and  general  to  complex  and  specialized 
forms ;  also  "  the  parallelism  between  the  order  of 
succession  of  animals  in  geological  times  and  the 
changes  their  living  representatives  undergo  during 
their  embryological  growth,"  as  if  the  world  were  one 
prolonged  gestation.  Modern  science  has  much  in- 
sisted on  this  parallelism,  and  to  a  certain  extent  is' 
allowed  to  have  made  it  out.  All  these  things,  which 
conspire  to  prove  that  the  ancient  and  the  recent  forms 
of  life  "  are  somehow  intimately  connected  together 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  119 

in  one  grand  system,"  equally  conspire  to  suggest  tliat 
the  connection  is  one  similar  or  analogons  to  gen- 
eration. Surely  no  naturalist  can  be  blamed  for 
entering  somewhat  confidently  upon  a  field  of  specula- 
tive inquiry  wliicli  here  opens  so  invitingly ;  nor  need 
former  premature  endeavors  and  failures  utterly 
dishearten  him. 

All  these  things,  it  may  naturally  be  said,  go  to 
explain  the  order,  not  the  mode,  of  the  incoming  of 
species.  But  they  all  do  tend  to  bring  out  the  gen- 
eralization expressed  by  Mr.  Wallace  in  the  formula 
that  "every  species  has  come  into  existence  coincident 
both  in  time  and  space  with  preexisting  closely-allied 
species."  ISTot,  however,  that  this  is  proved  even  of 
existing  species  as  a  matter  of  general  fact.  It  is  ob- 
viously impossible  to  prove  anything  of  the  kind.  But 
we  must  concede  that  the  known  facts  strongly  suggest 
such  an  inference.  And — since  species  are  only  con- 
geries of  individuals,  since  every  individual  came  into 
existence  in  consequence  of  preexisting  individuals  of 
the  same  sort,  so  leading  up  to  the  individuals  with 
which  the  species  began,  and  since  the  only  material 
sequence  we  know  of  among  plants  and  animals  is  that 
from  parent  to  progeny — the  presumption  becomes 
exceedingly  strong  that  the  connection  of  the  incoming 
with  the  preexisting  species  is  a  genealogical  one. 

Here,  however,  all  depends  upon  the  probability 
that  Mr.  Wallace's  inference  is  really  true.  Certainly 
it  is  not  yet  generally  accepted ;  but  a  strong  current 
is  setting  toward  its  acceptance. 

So  long  as  universal  cataclysms  were  in  vogue,  and 
all  life  upon  the  earth  was  thought   to  have  been 


120  DABWimAN'A. 

suddenly  destroyed  and  renewed  many  times  in  suc- 
cession, such  a  view  could  not  be  thought  of.  So  the 
equivalent  view  maintained  by  Agassiz,  and  formerly, 
we  believe,  by  D'Orbigny,  that  irrespectively  of  general 
and  sudden  catastrophes,  or  any  known  adequate  phys- 
ical cause,  there  has  been  a  total  depopulation  at  the 
close  of  each  geological  period  or  formation,  say  forty 
or  fifty  times  or  more,  followed  by  as  many  indepen- 
dent great  acts  of  creation,  at  which  alone  have  species 
been  originated,  and  at  each  of  which  a  vegetable  and 
an  animal  kingdom  were  produced  entire  and  com- 
plete, full-fiedged,  as  flourishing,  as  wide-spread,  and 
populous,  as  varied  and  mutually  adapted  from  the 
beginning  as  ever  afterward — such  a  view,  of  course, 
supersedes  all  material  connection  between  succes- 
sive species,  and  removes  even  the  association  and  geo- 
graphical range  of  species  entirely  out  of  the  domain  of 
physical  causes  and  of  natural  science.  This  is  the  ex- 
treme opposite  of  Wallace's  and  Darwin's  view,  and  is 
quite  as  hypothetical.  The  nearly  universal  opinion,  if 
we  rightly  gather  it,  manifestly  is,  that  the  replacement 
of  the  species  of  successive  formations  was  not  com- 
plete and  simultaneous,  but  partial  and  successive ;  and 
that  along  the  course  of  each  epoch  some  species  prob- 
ably were  introduced,  and  some,  doubtless,  became  ex- 
tinct. If  all  since  the  tertiary  belongs  to  our  present 
epoch,  this  is  certainly  true  of  it :  if  to  two  or  more 
epochs,  then  the  hypothesis  of  a  total  change  is  not 
true  of  them. 

Geology  makes  huge  demands  upon  time ;  and  we 
regret  to  find  that  it  has  exhausted  om's — that  what  we 
meant  for  the  briefest  and  most  general  sketch  of  some 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  121 

geological  considerations  in  favor  of  Darwin's  hy- 
pothesis has  so  extended  as  to  leave  no  room  for  con- 
sidering "  the  great  facts  of  comparative  anatomy  and 
zoology"  with  which  Darwin's  theory  "very  well 
accords,"  nor  for  indicating  how  "  it  admirably  serves 
for  explaining  the  unity  of  composition  of  all  or- 
ganisms, the  existence  of  representative  and  rudimen- 
tary organs,  and  the  natural  series  which  genera  and 
species  compose."  Suffice  it  to  say  that  these  are  the 
real  strongholds  of  the  new  system  on  its  theoretical 
side;  that  it  goes  far  toward  explaining  both  the 
physiological  and  the  structural  gradations  and  rela- 
tions between  the  two  kingdoms,  and  the  arrangement 
of  all  their  forms  in  groups  subordinate  to  groups,  all 
within  a  few  great  types ;  that  it  reads  the  riddle  of 
abortive  organs  and  of  morphological  conformity,  of 
which  no  other  theory  has  ever  offered  a  scientific 
explanation,  and  supplies  a  ground  for  harmonizing 
the  two  fundamental  ideas  which  naturalists  and  phi- 
losophers conceive  to  have  ruled  the  organic  world, 
though  they  could  not  reconcile  them  ;  namely,  Adap- 
tation to  Purpose  and  Conditions  of  Existence,  and 
Unity  of  Type.  To  reconcile  these  two  undeniable 
principles  is  the  capital  problem  in  the  philosophy 
of  natural  history ;  and  the  hypothesis  which  consist- 
ently does  so  thereby  secures  a  great  advantage. 

We  all  know  that  the  arm  and  hand  of  a  monkey, 
the  foreleg  and  foot  of  a  dog  and  of  a  horse,  the  wing 
of  a  bat,  and  the  fin  of  a  porpoise,  are  fundamentally 
identical;  that  the  long  neck  of  the  giraffe  has  the 
same  and  no  more  bones  than  the  short  one  of  the  ele- 
phant ;  that  the  eggs  of  Surinam  frogs  hatch  into  tad- 


122  DAEWINIANA. 

poles  with  as  good  tails  for  swimming  as  any  of  their 
kindred,  although  as  tadpoles  they  never  enter  the  wa- 
ter ;  that  the  Guinea-pig  is  furnished  with  incisor  teeth 
which  it  never  uses,  as  it  sheds  them  before  birth; 
that  embryos  of  mammals  and  bkds  have  branchial 
slits  and  arteries  running  in  loops,  in  imitation  or  remi- 
niscence of  the  arrangement  which  is  permanent  in 
fishes  ;  and  that  thousands  of  animals  and  plants  have 
rudimentary  organs  which,  at  least  in  numerous  cases, 
are  wholly  useless  to  their  possessors,  etc.,  etc.  Upon 
a  derivative  theory  this  morphological  conformity  is 
explained  by  community  of  descent ;  and  it  has  not 
been  explained  in  any  other  way. 

I^aturalists  are  constantly  speaking  of  "related 
species,"  of  the  "  affinity  "  of  a  genus  or  other  group, 
and  of  "  famil}^  resemblance  " — vaguely  conscious  that 
these  terms  of  kinship  are  something  more  than  mere 
metaphors,  but  unaware  of  the  grounds  of  their  apt- 
ness. Mr.  Darwin  assures  them  that  they  have  been 
talking  derivative  doctrine  all  their  lives — as  M.  Jour- 
dain  talked  prose — without  knowing  it. 

If  it  is  difficult  and  in  many  cases  practically  im- 
possible to  fix  the'  limits  of  species,  it  is.  still  more  so 
to  fix  those  of  genera ;  and  those  of  tribes  and  families 
are  still  less  susceptible  of  exact  natural  circumscrip- 
tion. Intennediate  forms  occur,  connecting  one  group 
with  another  in  a  manner  sadly  perplexing  to  sys- 
tematists,  except  to  those  who  have  ceased  to  expect 
absolute  limitations  in  Isature.  All  this  blending 
could  hardly  fail  to  suggest  a  former  material  connec- 
tion among  allied  fonns,  such  as  that  which  the 
hypothesis  of  derivation  demands. 


NATURAL  selection;  ETC  123 

Here  it  would  not  be  amiss  to  coDsider  tlie  general 
principle  of  gradation  throngliout  organic  Nature — a 
principle  wliich  answers  in  a  general  way  to  the  Law  of 
Continuity  in  the  inorganic  world,  or  rather  is  so  anal- 
ogous to  it  that  both  may  fairly  be  expressed  by  the 
Leibnitzian  axiom,  Natura  non  agit  saltaihn.  As  an 
axiom  or  philosophical  principle,  used  to  test  modal 
laws  or  hj^otheses,  this  in  strictness  belongs  only  to 
physics.  In  the  investigation  of  E"ature  at  large,  at 
least  in  the  organic  world,  nobody  would  undertake  to 
apply  this  principle  as  a  test  of  the  validity  of  any 
theory  or  supposed  law.  But  naturalists  of  enlarged 
views  will  not  fail  to  infer  the  principle  from  the  phe- 
nomena they  investigate — to  perceive  that  the  rule 
holds,  under  due  qualifications  and  altered  forms, 
throughout  the  realm  of  ITature ;  although  we  do  not 
suppose  that  E'ature  in  the  organic  world  makes  no 
distinct  steps,  but  only  short  and  serial  steps — not  in- 
finitely fine  gradations,  but  no  long  leaps,  or  few  of 
them. 

To  glance  at  a  few  illustrations  out  of  many  that 
present  themselves.  It  would  be  thought  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  organic  kingdoms  was  broad 
and  absolute.  Plants  and  animals  belong  to  two  very 
different  categories,  fulfill  opposite  offices,  and,  as  to 
the  mass  of  them,  are  so  unlike  that  the  difficulty  of 
the  ordinary  observer  would  be  to  find  points  of  com- 
parison. "Without  entering  into  details,  which  would 
fill  an  article,  we  may  safely  say  that  the  difficulty  with 
the  naturalist  is  all  the  other  way — that  all  these 
broad  differences  vanish  one  by  one  as  we  approach  the 
lower  confines  of  the  two  kingdoms,  and  that  no  ahso- 


124  DAEWINIANA. 

lute  distinction  whatever  is  now  known  between  tliem. 
It  is  quite  possible  that  the  same  organism  may  be 
both  vegetable  and  animal,  or  may  be  first  the  one  and 
then  the  other.  If  some  organisms  may  be  said  to  be 
at  first  vegetables  and  then  animals,  others,  like  the 
spores  and  other  reproductive  bodies  of  many  of  the 
lower  Algge,  may  equally  claim  to  have  first  a  charac- 
teristically animal,  and  then  an  unequivocally  vegeta- 
ble existence.  !Nor  is  the  gradation  restricted  to  these 
simple  organisms.  It  appears  in  general  functions,  as 
in  that.of  reproduction,  which  is  reducible  to  the  same 
formula  in  both  kingdoms,  while  it  exhibits  close  ap- 
proximations in  the  lower  forms ;  also  in  a  common  or 
similar  ground  of  sensibility  in  the  lowest  forms  of 
both,  a  common  faculty  of  effecting  movements  tend- 
ing to  a  determinate  end,  traces  of  which  pervade  the 
vegetable  kingdom — while,  on  the  other  hand,  this  in- 
definable principle,  this  vegetable 

"  Animula  vagula,  blandula, 
Hospes  comesque  corporis," 

graduates  into  the  higher  sensitiveness  of  the  lower 
class  of  animals.  Nor  need  we  hesitate  to  recognize 
the  fine  gradations  from  simple  sensitiveness  and 
volition  to  the  higher  instinctive  and  to  the  other 
psychical  manifestations  of  the  higher  brute  ani- 
mals. The  gradation  is  undoubted,  however  we  may 
explain  it. 

Again,  propagation  is  of  one  mode  in  the  higher 
animals,  of  two  in  all  plants ;  but  vegetative  propaga- 
tion, by  budding  or  offshoots,  extends  through  the 
lower  grades  of   animals.     In   both   kingdoms   there 


NATURAL  SELECTION,  ETC.  125 

may  be  separation  of  the  offshoots,  or  indifference  in 
this  respect,  or  continued  and  organic  union  with  the 
parent  stock ;  and  this  eitlier  with  essential  indepen- 
dence of  the  offshoots,  or  witli  a  subordination  of  these 
to  a  common  whole ;  or  finally  with  such  subordination 
and  amalgamation,  along  with  specialization  of  func- 
tion, that  the  same  parts,  which  in  other  cases  can  be 
regarded  only  as  progeny,  in  these  become  only  mem- 
bers of  an  individual. 

This  leads  to  the  question  of  individuality,  a  sub- 
ject quite  too  large"  and  too  recondite  for  present  dis- 
cussion. The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,  how- 
ever, is,  that  indi\dduality — that  very  ground  of  l)eing 
as  distinguished  from  thing — is  not  attained  in  IS^ature 
at  one  leap.  If  anywhere  truly  exemplified  in  j)]ants, 
it  is  only  in  the  lowest  and  simplest,  where  the  being 
is  a  structural  unit,  a  single  cell,  memberless  and  or- 
ganless,  though  organic — the  same  thing  as  those  cells 
of  which  all  the  more  complex  plants  are  built  up,  and 
with  which  every  plant  and  (structurally)  every  animal 
began  its  development.  In  the  ascending  gradation 
of  the  vegetable  kingdom  individuality  is,  so  to  say, 
striven  after,  but  never  attained;  in  the  lower  ani- 
mals it  is  striven  after  with  greater  though  incom- 
plete success  ;  it  is  realized  only  in  animals  of  so  high 
a  rank  that  vegetative  multiplication  or  offshoots  are 
out  of  the  question,  where  all  parts  are  strictly  mem- 
bers and  nothing  else,  and  all  subordinated  to  a  com- 
mon nervous  centre — is  fully  realized  only  in  a  con- 
scious person. 

So,  also,  the  broad  distinction  between  reproduc- 
tion by  seeds  or  ova  and  propagation  by  buds,  though 


126  DARWINIANA. 

perfect  in  some  of  tlie  lowest  forms  of  life,  becomes 
evanescent  in  others ;  and  even  the  most  absolute  law 
we  know  in  the  physiology  of  genuine  reproduction — 
that  of  sexual  cooperation — ^has  its  exceptions  in  both 
kingdoms  in  parthenogenesis,  to  which  in  the  vege- 
table kingdom  a  most  curious  and  intimate  series  of 
gradations  leads.  In  plants,  likewise,  a  long  and  fine- 
ly-graduated series  of  traiisitions  leads  from  bisexual 
to  unisexual  blossoms ;  and  so  in  various  other  respects. 
Everywhere  we  may  perceive  that  Nature  secures  her 
ends,  and  makes  her  distinctions  on  the  whole  mani- 
fest and  real,  but  everywhere  without  abrupt  breaks. 
"We  need  not  wonder,  therefore,  that  gradations  be- 
tween species  and  varieties  should  occur  ;  the  more  so, 
since  genera,  tribes,  and  other  groups  into  which  the 
naturalist  collocates  species,  are  far  from  being  always 
absolutely  limited  in  Nature,  though  they  are  neces- 
sarily represented  to  be  so  in  systems.  From  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  case,  the  classifications  of  the  naturalist 
abruptly  define  where  Nature  more  or  less  blends. 
Our  systems  are  nothing,  if  not  definite.  They  ex- 
press differences,  and  some  of  the  coarser  gradations. 
But  this  evinces  not  their  perfection,  but  their  im- 
perfection. Even  the  best  of  them  are  to  the  system 
of  Nature  what  consecutive  patches  of  the  seven  col- 
ors are  to  the  rainbow. 

Now  the  principle  of  gradation  throughout  organic 
Nature  may,  of  course,  be  interpreted  upon  other  as- 
sumptions than  those  of  Darwin's  hypothesis^cer- 
tainly  upon  quite  other  than  those  of  a  materialistic 
philosophy,  with  which  we  ourselves  have  no  sym- 
pathy.     Still  we  conceive  it  not   only  possible,  but 


NATURAL  SELECTION',  ETC.  127 

probable,  tliat  this  gradation,  as  it  has  its  natural 
ground,  may  yet  have  its  scientific  explanation.  In 
any  case,  there  is  no  need  to  deny  that  the  general 
facts  correspond  well  with  an  hypothesis  like  Dar- 
win's, which  is  built  npon  fine  gradations. 

We  have  contemplated  quite  long  enough  the  gen- 
eral presumptions  in  favor  of  an  hypothesis  of  the 
derivation  of  species.  AYe  cannot  forget,  however, 
while  for  the  moment  we  overlook,  the  formidable  diffi- 
culties which  all  hypotheses  of  this  class  have  to  en- 
counter, and  the  serious  implications  which  they  seem 
to  involve.  We  feel,  moreover,  that  Darwin's  par- 
ticular hypothesis  is  exposed  to  some  special  objections. 
It  requires  no  small  streiigth  of  nerve  steadily  to  con- 
ceive, not  only  of  the  diversification,  but  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  organs  of  an  animal  through  cumulative 
variation  and  natural  selection.  Think  of  such  an 
organ  as  the  eye,  that  most  perfect  of  optical  instru- 
ments, as  so  produced  in  the  lower  animals  and  per- 
fected in  the  higher !  A  friend  of  ours,  who  accepts 
the  new  doctrine,  confesses  that  for  a  long  while  a 
cold  chill  came  over  him  whenever  he  thought  of  the 
eye.  He  has  at  length  got  over  that  stage  of  the 
complaint,  and  is  now  in  the  fever  of  belief,  perchance 
to  be  succeeded  by  the  sweating  stage,  during  which 
sundry  peccant  humors  may  be  eliminated  from  the 
system.  For  ourselves,  we  dread  the  chill,  and  have 
some  misgiving  about  the  consequences  of  the  reac- 
tion. We  find  ourselves  in  the  "  singular  position  "  ac- 
knowledged by  Pictet — that  is,  confronted  with  a  the- 
ory which,  although  it  can  really  ex}3lain  much,  seems 
inadequate  to  the  heavy  task  it  so  boldly  assumes,  but 


128  DARWINIANA. 

which,  nevertheless,  appears  better  fitted  than  any  other 
that  has  been  broached  to  explain,  if  it  be  possible  to 
explain,  somewhat  of  the  manner  in  which  organized 
beings  may  have  arisen  and  succeeded  each  other.  In 
this  dilemma  we  might  take  advantage  of  Mr.  Dar- 
win's candid  admission,  that  he  by  no  means  expects  to 
convince  old  and  experienced  people,  whose  minds  are 
stocked  with  a  multitude  of  facts  all  regarded  during 
a  long  couj^se  of  years  from  the  old  point  of  view.  This 
is  nearly  our  case.  So,  owning  no  call  to  a  larger  faith 
than  is  expected  of  us,  but  not  prej^ared  to  pronounce 
the  whole  hypothesis  untenable,  under  such  construc- 
tion as  we  should  put  upon  it,  we  naturally  sought 
to  attain  a  settled  conviction  through  a  perusal  of 
several  proffered  refutations  of  the  theory.  At  least, 
this  course  seemed  to  offer  the  readiest  way  of  bringing 
to  a  head  the  various  objections  to  which  the  theory 
is  exposed.  On  several  accounts  some  of  these  opposed 
reviews  especially  invite  examination.  "We  propose, 
accordingly,  to  conclude  our  task  with  an  article  upon 
"  Darwin  and  his  Keviewers." 


III. 

The  origin  of  species,  like  all  origination,  like  tlie 
institution  of  any  otlier  natural  state  or  ord^r,  is  be- 
yond our  immediate  ken.  We  see  or  may  learn  how 
things  go  on;  we  can  only  frame  hypotheses  as  to  how 
they  began. 

Two  hypotheses  divide  the  scientific  world,  very 
unequally,  upon  the  origin  of  the  existing  diversity 
of  the  plants  and  animals  which  surround  us.  One 
assumes  that  the  actual  kinds  are  primordial ;  the  other, 
that  they  are  derivative.  One,  that  all  kinds  origi- 
nated supernaturally  and  directly  as  such,  and  have 
'continued  unchanged  in  the  order  of  ITature ;  the 
other,  that  the  present  kinds  appeared  in  some  sort  of 
genealogical  connection  with  other  and  earlier  kinds, 
that  they  became  what  they  now  are  in  the  course  of 
time  and  in  the  order  of  Mature. 

Or,  bringing  in  the  word  species,  which  is  well 
defined  as  "  the  perennial  succession  of  individuals," 
commonly  of  very  like  individuals^as  a  close  corpora- 
tion of  individuals  perpetuated  by  generation,  instead 
of  election — and  reducing  the  question  to  mathemati- 
cal simplicity  of  statement :  species  are  lines  of  individ- 
uals coming  down  from  the  past  and  running  on  to 
the  future  ;  lines  receding,  therefore,  from  our  view  in 
either  direction.     Within  our  limited  observation  they 


130  DARWINIAKA. 

appear  to  be  parallel  lines,  as  a  general  thing  neither 
approaching  to  nor  diverging  from  each  other. 

The  first  hypothesis  assumes  that  they  were  parallel 
from  the  unknown  beginning  and  will  be  to  the  un- 
known end.  The  second  hypothesis  assumes  that  the 
apparent  parallelism  is  not  real  and  complete,  at  least 
aboriginally,  but  approximate  or  temporary ;  that  we 
should  find  the  lines  convergent  in  the  past,  if  we  could 
trace  them  far  enough ;  that  some  of  them,  if  produced 
back,  would  fall  into  certain  fragments  of  lines,  which 
have  left  traces  in  the  past,  lying  not  exactly  in  the 
same  direction,  and  these  farther  back  into  others  to 
which  they  are  equally  unparallel.  It  will  also  claim 
that  the  present  lines,  whether  on  the  whole  really  or 
only  approximately  parallel,  sometimes  fork  or  send  off 
branches  on  one  side  or  the  other,  producing  new 
lines  (varieties),  which  run  for  a  while,  and  for  aught 
we  know  indefinitely  when  not  interfered  with,  near 
and  approximately  parallel  to  the  parent  line.  This 
claim  it  can  establish ;  and  it  may  also  show  that  these 
close  subsidiary  lines  may  branch  or  vary  again,  and 
that  those  branches  or  varieties  which  are  best  adapted 
to  the  existing  conditions  may  be  continued,  while 
others  stop  or  die  out.  And  so  we  may  have  the  basis 
of  a  real  theory  of  the  diversificatiorh  of  species ;  and 
here,  indeed,  there  is  a  real,  though  a  narrow,  estab- 
lished ground  to  build  upon.  But,  as  systems  of 
organic  E^ature,  both  doctrines  are  equally  hypotheses^ 
are  suj^positions  of  what  there  is  no  proof  of  from 
experience,  assumed  in  order  to  account  for  the  ob- 
served phenomena,  and  supported  by  such  indirect 
evidence  as  can  be  had. 


DABWIiV  A^s'-D  HIS  REVIEWERS.  131 

.  EYen  when  the  upholders  of  the  former  and  more 
popuL^r  system  mix  np  revelation  with  scientific  dis- 
cussion— which  we  decline  to  do — thej  by  no  means 
thereby  render  their  view  other  than  hypothetical. 
Agreeing  that  plants  and  animals  were  produced  by 
Omnipotent  fiat  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  natural 
order  and  what  we  call  secondary  causes.  The  record 
of  the  fiat — "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the  herb 
yielding  seed,"  etc.,  "  and  it  was  so  ;  "  "  let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle  and 
creeping  thing  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind, 
and  it  was  so  " — seems  even  to  imply  them.  Agi-eeing 
that  they  were  formed  of  "  the  dust  of  the  ground," 
and  of  thin  air,  onlv  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
pristine  individuals  were  coi'poreally  constituted  like 
existing  individuals,  produced  through  natural  agen- 
cies. To  agree  that  they  were  created  "  after  their 
kinds"  determines  nothing  as  to  what  were  the  origi- 
nal kinds,  nor  in  what  mode,  during  what  time,  and 
in  what  connections  it  pleased  the  Almighty  to  intro- 
duce the  first  individuals  of  each  sort  upon  the  earth. 
Scientifically  considered,  the  two  opposing  doctrines 
are  equally  hypothetical. 

The  two  views  very  unequally  divide  the  scientific 
world;  so  that  believers  in  "the  divine  right  of 
majorities "  need  not  hesitate  which  side  to  take,  at 
least  for  the  present.  Up  to  a  time  quite  within  the 
memory  of  a  generation  still  on  the  stage,  two  hypoth- 
eses about  the  nature  of  light  very  unequally  divided 
the  scientific  world.  But  the  small  minority  has  al- 
ready prevailed :  the  emission  theory  has  gone  out ; 
the  undulatory  or  wave  theory,  after  some  fluctuation, 


132  DARWINIANA. 

has  reached  high  tide,  and  is  now  the  pervading,  the 
fully-established  system.  There  was  an  intervening 
time  during  which  most  physicists  held  their  opinions 
in  suspense. 

The  adoj)tion  of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light 
called  for  the  extension  of  the  same  theory  to  heat, 
and  this  promptly  suggested  the  hypothesis  of  a 
correlation,  material  connection,  and  transmutability 
of  heat,  light,  electricity,  magnetism,  etc.  ;  which  hy- 
pothesis the  physicists  held  in  absolute  suspense  until 
very  lately,  but  are  now  generally  adopting.  If  not 
already  established  as  a  system,  it  promises  soon  to 
become  so.  At  least,  it  is  generally  received  as  a 
tenable  and  probably  true  hypothesis. 

Parallel  to  this,  however  less  cogent  the  reasons, 
Darwin  and  others,  having  shown  it  likely  that  some 
varieties  of  plants  or  animals  have  diverged  in  time 
into  cognate  species,  or  into  forms  as  different  as  spe- 
cies, are  led  to  infer  that  all  species  of  a  genus  may 
have  thus  diverged  from  a  common  stock,  and  thence 
to  suppose  a  higher  community  of  origin  in  ages  still 
farther  back,  and  so  on.  Following  the  safe  example 
of  the  physicists,  and  acknowledging  the  fact  of  the 
diversification  of  a  once  homogeneous  species  into 
varieties,  we  may  receive  the  theory  of  the  evolution 
of  these  into  species,  even  while  for  the  present  we 
hold  the  hypothesis  of  a  further  evolution  in  cool 
susj)ense  or  in  grave  suspicion.  In  respect  to  very 
many  questions  a  wise  man's  mind  rests  long  in  a  state 
neither  of  belief  nor  of  unbelief.  But  your  intellect- 
ually short-sighted  people  are  apt  to  be  preternaturally 
clear-sighted,  and  to  find  their  way  very  plain  to  posi- 


DARWm  AND  EIS  REVIEWERS.  133 

tive  conclusions  upon  one  side  or  tlie  otlier  of  every 
mooted  question. 

In  fact,  most  people,  and  some  philosophers,  refuse 
to  hold  questions  in  abeyance,  however  incompetent 
they  may  be  to  decide  them.  And,  curiously  enough, 
the  more  difficult,  recondite,  and  perplexing,  the 
questions  or  hypotheses  are — such,  for  instance,  as 
those  about  organic  Nature — the  more  impatient  they 
are  of  suspense.  Sometimes,  and  evidently  in  the 
present  case,  this  impatience  grows  out  of  a  fear  that 
a  new  hypothesis  may  endanger  cherished  and  most 
important  beliefs.  Impatience  under  such  circum- 
stances is  not  unnatural,  though  perhaps  needless,  and, 
if  so,  unwise. 

To  us  the  present  revival  of  the  derivative  hy- 
pothesis, in  a  more  winning  shape  than  it  ever  before 
had,  was  not  unexpected.  We  wonder  that  any 
thoughtful  observer  of  the  course  of  investigation  and 
of  speculation  in  science  should  not  have  foreseen  it, 
and  have  learned  at  length  to  take  its  inevitable  com- 
ing patiently ;  the  more  so,  as  in  Dar^\dn's  treatise  it 
comes  in  a  purely  scientific  form,  addressed  only  to 
scientific  men.  The  notoriety  and  wide  popular  pe- 
rusal of  this  treatise  appear  to  have  astonished  the 
author  even  more  than  the  book  itself  has  astonished 
the  reading  w^orld.  Coming,  as  the  new  presentation 
does,  from  a  naturalist  of  acknowledged  character  and 
ability,  and  marked  by  a  conscientiousness  and  candor 
which  have  not  always  been  reciprocated,  we  have 
thought  it  simply  right  to  set  forth  the  doctrine  as 
fairly  and  as  favorably  as  we  could.  There  are  plenty 
to  decry  it,  and  the  whole  theory  is  widely  exposed 


134  .  DARWINIANA. 

to  attack.  For  tlie  arguments  on  the  other  side  we 
may  look  to  the  numerous  adverse  pnblications  which 
Darwin's  volnme  has  ah'eady  called  out,  and  especially 
to  those  reviews  which  propose  directly  to  refute  it. 
Taking  various  lines,  and  reflecting  very  diverse  modes 
of  thought,  these  hostile  critics  may  be  expected  to 
concentrate  and  enforce  the  principal  objections  which 
can  be  brought  to  bear  against  the  derivative  hypothe- 
sis in  general,  and  Darwin's  new  exposition  of  it  in 
particular. 

Upon  the  opposing  side  of  the  question  we  have 
read  with  attention — 1.  An  article  in  the  North  Amieri- 
can  Review  for  April  last ;  2.  One  in  the  Christian 
Examiner^  Boston,  for  May ;  3.  M.  Pictet's  article  in 
the  BiHliotheqxie  Universelle,  which  we  have  already 
made  considerable  use  of,  which  seems  throughout 
most  able  and  correct,  and  which  in  tone  and  fairness 
is  admirably  in  contrast  with — 4.  The  article  in  the 
Edinburgh  Review  for  May,  attributed — although 
against  a  large  amount  of  interaal  presumptive  evi- 
dence— to  the  most  distinguised  British  comparative 
anatomist ;  5.  An  article  in  the  North  British  Review 
for  May;  6.  Prof.  Agassiz  has  afforded  an  early 
opportunity  to  peruse  the  criticisms  he  makes  in  the 
forthcoming  third  volume  of  his  great  work,  by  a 
publication  of  them  in  advance  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Sc'ence  for  July. 

In  our  survey  of  the  lively  discussion  which  has 
been  raised,  it  matters  little  how  our  own  particular 
opinions  may  incline.  But  we  may  confess  to  an  im- 
pression, thus  far,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  permanent 
and  complete  immutability  of  species  has  not  been 


DAEWm  AI^^'D  HIS  REVIEWERS.  135 

establislied,  and  may  fairly  be  doubted.  We  believe 
that  species  vary,  and  that  "  JSTatural  Selection " 
works ;  bnt  we  suspect  that  its  operation,  like  every 
analogous  natural  operation,  may  be  limited  by  some- 
thing else.  Just  as  every  species  by  its  natural  rate  of 
reproduction  would  soon  completely  fill  any  country 
it  could  live  in,  but  does  not,  being  checked  by  some 
other  species  or  some  other  condition — so  it  may 
be  surmised  that  variation  and  natural  selection 
have  their  struggle  and  consequent  check,  or  are 
limited  by  something  inherent  in  the  constitution  of 
organic  beings. 

We  are  disposed  to  rank  the  derivative  hypothe- 
sis in  its  fullness  with  the  nebular  hypothesis,  and  to 
regard  both  as  allowable,  as  not  unlikely  to  prove  ten- 
able in  spite  of  some  strong  objections,  but  as  not 
therefore  demonstrably  true.  Those,  if  any  there  be, 
who  regard  the  derivative  hj^othesis  as  satisfactorily 
proved,  must  have  loose  notions  as  to  what  proof  is. 
Those  who  imagine  it  can  be  easily  refuted  and  cast 
aside,  must,  we  think,  have  imperfect  or  very  pre- 
judiced conceptions  of  the  facts  concerned  and  of 
the  questions  at  issue.     ' 

We  are  not  disposed  nor  prepared  to  take  sides  for 
or  against  the  new  hypothesis,  and  so,  perhaps,  occu- 
py a  good  position  from  which  to  watch  the  discus- 
sion and  criticise  those  objections  which  are  seemingly 
inconclusive.  On  surveying  the  arguments  urged  by 
those  who  have  undertaken  to  demolish  the  theory, 
we  have  been  most  impressed  with  a  sense  of  their 
great  inequality.  Some  strike  us  as  excellent  and 
perhaps   unanswerable ;    some,  as   incongruous   with 


136  DARWIRIANA. 

other  views  of  tlie  same  writers  ;  otliers,  when  carried 
out,  as  incoraj^atible  with  general  experience  or  general 
beliefs,  and  therefore  as  proving  too  much ;  still 
others,  as  proving  nothing  at  all ;  so  that,  on  the 
whole,  the  effect  is  rather  confusing  and  disappoint- 
ing. We  certainly  expected  a  stronger  adverse  case 
than  any  which  the  thoroughgoing  opposers  of  Dar- 
win appear  to  have  made  out.  Wherefore,  if  it  be 
found  that  the  new  hypothesis  has  grown  upon  our 
favor  as  we  proceeded,  this  must  be  attributed  not 
so  much  to  the  force  of  the  arguments  of  the  book 
itself  as  to  the  want  of  force  of  several  of  those  by 
which  it  has  been  assailed.  Darwin's  arguments  we 
might  resist  or  adjourn ;  but  some  of  the  refutations 
of  it  give  us  more  concern  than  the  book  itself  did. 

These  remarks  apply  mainly  to  the  philosophical 
and  theological  objections  which  have  been  elaborately 
urged,  almost  exclusively  by  the  American  reviewers. 
The  North  Bi^itisJi  reviewer,  indeed,  roundly  de- 
nounces the  book  as  atheistical,  but  evidently  deems 
the  case  too  clear  for  argument.  The  Edhibicrgh  re- 
viewer, on  the  contrary,  scouts  all  such  objections 
— as  well  he  may,  since  he  records  his  belief  in  "  a 
continuous  creative  operation,"  a  constantly  operating 
secondary  creation  al  law,"  through  which  species  are 
successively  produced  ;•  and  he  emits  faint,  but  not 
indistinct,  glimmerings  of  a  transmutation  theory  of 
his  own;^  so  that  he  is  equally  exposed  to  all  the 

^  Whatever  it  may  be,  it  is  not "  the  homoeopathic  form  of  the  trans- 
mutative  hypothesis,"  as  Darwin's  is  said  to  be  (p.  252,  American  re- 
print), so  happily  that  the  prescription  is  repeated  in  the  second  (p.  259) 
and  third  (p.  271)  dilutions,  no  doubt,  on  Hahnemann's  famous  princi- 


DARWIN  AND  ELS  REVIEWERS.  137 

philosophical  objections  advanced  by  Agassiz,  and  to 
most  of  those  urged  by  the  other  American  critics, 
against  Darwin  himself. 

Proposing  now  to  criticise  the  critics,  so  far  as  to 
see  what  their  most  general  and  comprehensive  objec- 
tions amount  to,  we  must  needs  begin  with  the  Amer- 
ican reviewers,  and  wdth  their  arguments  adduced  to 
prove  that  a  derivative  hypothesis  ought  not  to  he  true, 
or  is  not  possible,  philosophical,  or  theistic. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  on  former  occasions 
very  confident  judgments  have  been  pronounced  by 
very  competent  persons,  which  have  not  been  finally 
ratified.  Of  the  two  great  minds  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  I^ewton  and  Leibnitz,  both  profoundly  relig- 
ious as  well  as  philosophical,  one  produced  the  theory 
of  gravitation,  the  other  objected  to  that  theory  that  it 
was  subversive  of  natural  religion.  The  nebular  hy- 
pothesis— a  natural  consequence  of  the  theory  of  grav- 
itation and  of  the  subsequent  progress  of  physical  and 
astronomical  discovery — has  been  denounced  as  athe- 
istical even  down  to  our  own  day.  But  it  is  now^  large- 
ly adopted  by  the  most  theistical  natural  philosophers 
as  a  tenable  and  perhaps  sufiicient  hypothesis,  and 
where  not  accepted  is  no  longer  objected  to,  so  far  as 
we  know,  on  philosophical  or  religious  grounds. 

The  gist  of  the  philosophical  objections  urged  by 

pie,  of  an  increase  of  potency  at  each  dilution.  Probably  the  supposed 
transmutation  is  per  saltus.  "  Homoeopathic  doses  of  transmutation," 
indeed  !  Well,  if  we  really  must  swallow  transmutation  in  some  form 
or  other,  as  this  reviewer  intimates,  we  might  prefer  the  mild  homoeo- 
pathic doses  of  Darwin's  formula  to  the  allopathic  bolus  which  the 
Edinburgh   general  practitioner  appears  to  be  compounding. 


138  DARWINIANA. 

the  two  Boston  reviewers  against  an  hypothesis  of  the 
derivation  of  species — or  at  least  against  Darwin's 
particular  hypothesis— is,  that  it  is  incompatible  with 
the  idea  of  any  manifestation  of  design  in  the  uni- 
verse, that  it  denies  final  causes.  A  serious  objection 
this,  and  one  that  demands  very  serious  attention. 

The  proposition,  that  things  and  events  in  E^ature 
were  not  designed  to  be  so,  if  logically  carried  out,  is 
doubtless  tantamount  to  atheism.  Yet  most  people 
believe  that  some  were  designed  and  others  were  not, 
although  they  fall  into  a  hopeless  maze  whenever  they 
undertake  to  define  their  position.  So  we  should  not 
like  to  stigmatize  as  atheistically  disposed  a  person 
who  regards  certain  things  and  events  as  being  what 
they  are  through  designed  laws  (whatever  that  expres- 
sion means),  but  as  not  themselves  specially  ordained, 
or  who,  in  another  connection,  believes  in  general,  but 
not  in  particular  Providence.  We  could  sadly  puzzle 
him  with  questions ;  but  in  return  he  might  equally 
puzzle  us.  Then,  to  deny  that  anything  was  specially 
designed  to  be  what  it  is,  is  one  proposition ;  while  to 
deny  that  the  Designer  supernaturally  or  immediately 
made  it  so,  is  another :  though  the  reviewers  appear 
not  to  recognize  the  distinction. 

Also,  "scornfully  to  repudiate"  or  to  "sneer  at 
the  idea  of  any  manifestation  of  design  in  the  mate- 
rial universe,"  ^  is  one  thing ;  while  to  consider,  and 
perhaps  to  exaggerate,  the  difficulties  which  attend  the 
■  practical  application  of  the  doctrine  of  final  causes  to 

^  Vide  North  Anerican  Eevieio,  for  April,  1860,  p.  475,  and  Chris- 
tian Examiner,  for  May,  p.  457. 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  139 

certain  instances,  is  quite  anotlier  tiling :  yet  the  Bos- 
ton reviewers,  we  regret  to  say,  have  not  been  duly 
regardful  of  the  difference.  Whatever  be  thought  of 
Darwin's  doctrine,  we  are  surprised  that  he  should  be 
charged  with  scorning  or  sneering  at  the  opinions  of 
others,  upon  such  a  subject.  Perhaps  Darwin's  view 
is  incompatible  with  final  causes — we  will  consider 
that  question  presently — bnt  as  to  the  Examiner's 
charge,  that  he  "  sneers  at  the  idea  of  any  manifesta- 
tion of  design  in  the  material  universe,"  though  we 
are  confident  that  no  misrepresentation  was  intended, 
we  are  equally  confident  that  it  is  not  at  all  warranted 
by  the  two  passages  cited  in  support  of  it.  Here  are 
the  passages : 

"If  green  woodpeckers  alone  had  existed,  or  we  did  not 
know  tlxat  there  were  many  black  and  pied  kinds,  I  dare  say 
that  we  should  have  thought  that  the  green  color  was  a  beau- 
tiful adaptation  to  hide  this  tree -frequenting  bird  from  its 
enemies." 

"If  our  reason  leads  us  to  admire  with  enthusiasm  a  multi- 
tude of  inimitable  contrivances  in  Nature,  this  same  reason  tells 
us,  though  we  may  easily  err  on  both  sides,  that  some  contriv- 
ances are  less  perfect.  Can  we  consider  the  sting  of  the  wasp 
or  of  the  bee  as  perfect,  which,  when  used  against  many  attack- 
ing animals,  cannot  be  withdrawn,  owing  to  the  backward 
serratures,  and  so  inevitably  causes  the  death  of  the  insect  by 
tearing  out  its  viscera  ? " 

If  the  sneer  here  escapes  ordinary  vision  in  the 
detached  extracts  (one  of  them  wanting  the  end  of  the 
sentence),  it  is,  if  possible,  more  imperceptible  when 
read  with  the  context.  Moreover,  this  perusal  inclines 
us  to  think  that  the  Examiner  has  misapprehended 
the  particular  argument  or  object,  as  well  as  the  spirit, 


140  DARWINIANA. 

of  the  author  in  these  passages.  The  whole  reads 
more  naturallj  as  a  caution  against  the  inconsiderate 
use  of  final  causes  in  science,  and  an  illustration  of 
some  of  the  manifold  errors  and  absurdities  which  their 
hasty  assumption  is  apt  to  involve — considerations 
probably  equivalent  to  those  which  induced  Lord  Bacon 
to  liken  final  causes  to  "  vestal  virgins."  So,  if  any 
one,  it  is  here  Bacon  that  ^'  sitteth  in  the  seat  of  the 
scornful."  As  to  Darwin,  in  the  section  from  which 
the  extracts  were  made,  he  is  considering  a  subsidiary 
question,  and  trying  to  obviate  a  particular  difficulty, 
but,  we  suppose,  is  wholly  unconscious  of  denying 
''  any  manifestation  of  design  in  the  material  universe." 
He  concludes  the  first  sentence : 

— "  and  consequently  that  it  was  a  character  of  importance, 
and  might  have  been  acquired  through  natural  selection  ;  as  it  is, 
I  have  no  doubt  that  the  color  is  due  to  some  quite  distinct 
cause,  probably  to  sexual  selection." 

After  an  illustration  from  the  vegetable  creation, 
Darwin  adds : 

"  The  naked  skin  on  the  head  of  a  vulture  is  generally  looked 
at  as  a  direct  adaptation  for  wallovring  in  putridity ;  and  so  it 
may  de,  or  it  may  possibly  be  due  to  the  direct  action  of  putrid 
matter ;  but  we  should  be  very  cautious  in  drawing  any  such 
inference,  when  we  see  that  the  skin  on  the  head  of  the  clean- 
feeding  male  turkey  is  likewise  naked.  The  sutures  in  the 
skulls  of  young  mammals  have  been  advanced  as  a  beautiful 
adaptation  for  aiding  parturition,  and  no  doubt  they  facilitate  or 
may  be  indispensable  for  this  act ;  but  as  sutures  occur  in  the 
skulls  of  young  birds  and  reptiles,  which  have  only  to  escape 
from  a  broken  egg,  we  may  infer  that  this  structure  has  arisen 
from  the  laws  of  growth,  and  has  been  taken  advantage  of  in 
the  parturition  of  the  higher  animals." 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  EEVIEWERS:  141 

All  this,  simply  taken,  is  beyond  cavil,  unless  the 
attempt  to  explain  scientifically  how  any  designed 
result  is  accomplished  savors  of  impropriety. 

In  the  other  place,  Darwin  is  contemplating  the 
patent  fact  that  ^'  perfection  here  below  "  is  relative,  not 
absolute — and  illustrating  this  by  the  circumstance 
that  European  animals,  and  especially  plants,  are  now 
proving  to  be  better  adapted  for  ISTew  Zealand  than 
many  of  the  indigenous  ones — that  "  the  correction  for 
the  aberration  of  light  is  said,  on  high  authority,  not 
to  be  quite  perfect  even  in  that  most  perfect  organ,  the 
eye."  And  then  follows  the  second  extract  of  the 
reviewer.  But  what  is  the  position  of  the  reviewer 
upon  his  own  interpretation  of  these  passages  ?  If  he 
insists  that  green  woodpeckers  were  specifically  created 
so  in  order  that  they  might  be  less  liable  to  capture, 
must  he  not  equally  hold  that  the  black  and  pied  ones 
were  specifically  made  of  these  colors  in  order  that 
they  might  be  more  liable  to  be  caught  ?  And  would 
an  explanation  of  the  mode  in  which  those  wood- 
peckers came  to  be  green,  however  complete,  convince 
him  that  the  color  was  undesigned  ? 

As  to  the  other  illustration,  is  the  reviewer  so  com- 
plete an  optimist  as  to  insist  that  the  arrangement 
and  the  weapon  are  wholly  perfect  {quoad  the  insect) 
the  normal  use  of  which  often  causes  the  annual  fatally 
to  injure  or  to  disembowel  itself  ?  Either  way  it  seems 
to  us  that  the  argument  here,  as  well  as  the  insect, 
performs  hari-hari.     The  Examiner  adds : 

"We  should  in  like  manner  object  to  the  vs^ovil  favorable^  as 
implying  that  some  species  are  placed  by  the  Creator  under  un- 
favorable circumstances,  at  least  under  such  as  might  be  ad- 
vantageously rao.dified." 

7 


142  BARWmiANA. 

But  are  not  many  individuals  and  some  races  of 
men  placed  by  the  Creator  "  under  unfavorable  circum- 
stances, at  least  under  such,  as  might  be  advantageously 
modified  ? "  Surelv  these  reviewers  must  be  livino^  in 
an  ideal  world,  surrounded  by  ''  the  faultless  monsters 
which  0117'  world  ne'er  saw,"  in  some  elysium  where 
imperfection  and  distress  were  never  heard  of !  Such 
arguments  resemble  some  which  we  often  hear  against 
the  Eible,  holding  that  book  responsible  as  if  it  origi- 
nated certain  facts  on  the  shady  side  of  human  nature 
or  the  apparently  darker  lines  of  Providential  dealing, 
thouo^h  the  facts  are  facts  of  common  observation  and 
have  to  be  confronted  upon  any  theory. 

The  North  American  reviewer  also  has  a  v/orld 
of  his  own — just  such  a  one  as  an  idealizing  philoso- 
pher would  be  apt  to  devise — that  is,  full  of  sharp  and 
absolute  distinctions :  such,  for  instance,  as  the  "  abso- 
lute invariableness  of  instinct ;  "  an  absolute  want  of 
intelligence  in  any  brute  animal ;  and  a  complete 
monopoly  of  instinct  by  the  brute  animals,  so  that 
this  "  instinct  is  a  great  matter  "  for  them  only,  since 
it  shai-ply  and  perfectly  distinguishes  this  portion  of 
organic  ISTature  from  the  vegetable  kingdom  on  the  one 
hand  and  from  man  on  the  other :  most  convenient 
views  for  argumentative  purposes,  but  we  suppose  not 
borne  out  in  fact. 

In  their  scientific  objections  the  two  reviewers  take 
somewhat  different  lines  ;  but  their  philosophical  and 
theological  arguments  strikingly  coincide.  They  agree 
in  emphatically  asserting  that  Darwin's  hypothesis  of 
the  origination  of  species  through  variation  and  natu- 
ral selection  "  repudiates  the  whole  doctrine  of  final 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  143 

causes,"  and  "  all  indication  of  design  or  purpose  in  the 
organic  world.  ...  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
formal  denial  of  any  agency  beyond  that  of  a  blind 
chance  in  the  developing  or  perfecting  of  the  organs  or 
instincts  of  created  beings.  ...  It  is  in  vain  that  the 
apologists  of  this  hypothesis  might  say  that  it  merely 
attributes  a  different  mode  and  time  to  the  Divine 
agency — that  all  the  qualities  subsequently  appearing 
in  their  descendan-ts  must  have  been  implanted,  and 
have  remained  latent  in  the  original  pair."  Such 
a  view,  the  Examiner  declares,  "is  nowhere  stated 
in  this  book,  and  would  be,  we  are  sure,  disclaimed 
by  the  author." 

We  should  like  to  be  informed  of  the  grounds  of 
this  sureness.  The  marked  rejection  of  spontaneous 
generation — the  statement  of  a  belief  that  all  animals 
have  descended  from  four  or  five  progenitors,  and  plants 
from  an  equal  or  lesser  number,  or,  perhaps,  if  con- 
strained to  it  by  analogy,  "  from  some  one  primordial 
form  into  which  life  was  first  breathed  " — coupled  with 
the  expression,  "  To  my  mind  it  accords  better  with 
w^hat  we  know  of  the  laws  impressed  on  matter  by  the 
Creator,  that  the  production  and  extinction  of  the  past 
and  present  inhabitants  of  the  world  should  have  been 
due  to  secondary  causes,"  than  "  that  each  species  has 
been  independently  created  " — these  and  similar  ex- 
pressions lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  author  probably 
does  accept  the  kind  of  view  w^hich  the  Examiner 
is  sure  he  would  disclaim.  At  least,  we  charitably 
see  nothing  in  his  scientific  theory  to  hinder  his  adop- 
tion of  Lord  Bacon's  "  Confession  of  Faith "  in  this 
regard — 


144  LARWINIANA. 

"That,  notwithstanding  God  hath  rested  and  ceased  from 
creating  [in  the  sense  of  supernatural  origination],  yet,  never-. 
theless,  he  doth  accomphsh  and  fulfill  his  divine  will  in  all 
things,  great  and  small,  singular  and  general,  as  fully  and  ex- 
actly by  providence  as  he  could  by  miracle  and  new  creation, 
though  his  working  be  not  immediate  and  direct,  but  by  com- 
pass ;  not  violating  IsTature,  which  is  his  own  law  upon  tlie 
creature."  •  ^ 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  uiideiiiable  that  Mr. 
Darwin  has  pui-posely  been  silent  upon  the  philosophi- 
cal and  theological  applications  of  his  theory.  This 
reticence,  nnder  the  circumstances,  argues  design,  and 
raises  inquiry  as  to  the  final  cause  or  reason  -why. 
Here,  as  in  higher  instances,  confident  as  we  are  that 
there  is  a  final  cause,  we  must  not  be  over-confident 
that  we  can  infer  the  particular  or  true  one.  Perhaps 
the  author  is  more  familiar  with  natural-historical  than 
with  philosophical  inquiries,  and,  not  having  decided 
which  particular  theory  about  efficient  cause  is  best 
founded,  he  meanwhile  argues  the  scientific  questions 
concerned — all  that  relates  to  secondary  causes — upon 
purely  scientific  grounds,  as  he  must  do  in  any  case. 
Perhaps,  confident,  as  he  evidently  is,  that  his  view  will 
finally  be  adopted,  he  may  enjoy  a  sort  of  satisfaction 
in  hearing  it  denounced  as  sheer  atheism  by  the  incon- 
.  siderate,  and  afterward,  when  it  takes  its  place  with 
the  nebular  hypothesis  and  the  like,  see  this  judgment 
reversed,  as  we  suppose  it  would  be  in  such  event. 

Whatever  Mr.  Darwin's  philosophy  may  be,  or 
w^hether  he  has  any,  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  at 
all,  compared  with  the  important  questions,  whether 
a  theory  to  account  for  the  origination  and  divereifi- 


DARWIN  AND  EIS  REVIEWERS.  145 

cation  of  animal  and  vegetable  forms  through  the  op- 
eration of  secondary  causes  does  or  does  not  exclude 
design ;  and  whether  the  establishment  by  adequate 
evidence  of  Darwin's  particular  theory  of  diversifica- 
tion through  variation  and  natural  selection  would  es- 
sentially alter  the  present  scientific  and  philosophical 
grounds  for  theistic  views  of  IsTature.  The  unqualified 
affirmative  judgment  rendered  by  the  two  Boston  re- 
viewers, evidently  able  and  practised  reasoners,  "  must 
give  us  pause."  We  hesitate  to  advance  our  conclu- 
sions in  opposition  to  theirs.  But,  after  full  and  seri- 
ous consideration,  we  are  constrained  to  say  that,  in 
our  opinion,  the  adoption  of  a  derivative  hypothesis, 
and  of  Darwin's  particular  hypothesis,  if  we  under- 
stand it,  would  leave  the  doctrines  of  final  causes, 
utility,  and  special  design,  just  where  they  were  before. 
We  do  not  pretend  that  the  subject  is  not  environed 
with  difficidties.  Every  view  is  so  environed;  and 
every  shifting  of  the  view  is  likely,  if  it  removes  some 
difficulties,  to  bring  others  into  prominence.  But  we 
cannot  perceive  that  Darwin's  theory  brings  in  any 
new  kind  of  scientific  difficulty,  that  is,  any  with  which 
philosophical  naturalists  were  not  already  familiar. 

Since  natural  science  deals  only  with  secondary  or 
natural  causes,  the  scientific  terms  of  a  theory  of  deri- 
vation of  species — no  less  than  of  a  theory  of  dynam- 
ics— must  needs  be  the  same  to  the  theist  as  to  the 
atheist.  The  difference  appears  only  when  the  inquiry 
is  carried  up  to  the  question  of  primary  cause — a  ques- 
tion which  belongs  to  p>hilosophy.  Wherefore,  Dar- 
win's reticence  about  efficient  cause  does  not  disturb 
us.     He  considers  only  the  scientific  questions.     As 


146  DARWINIANA. 

already  stated,  we  tliink  tliat  a  theistic  view  of  JSTature 
is  implied  in  his  book,  and  we  must  charitably  refrain 
from  suggesting  the  contrary  until  the  contrary  is  logi- 
cally deduced  from  his  premises.  If,  however,  he  any- 
where maintains  that  the  natural  causes  throuo^h  which 
species  are  diversified  operate  without  an  ordaining 
and  directing  intelligence,  and  that  the  orderly  arrange- 
ments and  admirable  adaptations  we  see  all  around  us 
are  fortuitous  or  blind,  undesigned  results — that  the 
eye,  though  it  came  to  see,  was  not  designed  for  see- 
ing, nor  the  hand  for  handling — then,  we  suppose,  he 
is  justly  chargeable  with  denying,  and  very  needlessly 
denying,  all  design  in  organic  IN^ature ;  otherwise,  we 
suppose  not.  Why,  if  Darwin's  well-known  passage 
about  the  eye  ^ — equivocal  though  some  of  the  language 
be — does  not  imply  ordaining  and  directing  intelli- 
gence, then  he  refutes  his  own  theory  as  effectually  as 
any  of  his  opponents  are  Hkely  to  do.     He  asks : 

''  May  we  not  believe  that  [under  variation  pro- 
ceeding long  enough,  generation  multiplying  the  bet- 
ter variations  times  enough,  and  natural  selection  se- 
curing the  improvements]  a  living  optical  instrument 
might  be  thus  formed  as  superior  to  one  of  glass  as  the 
works  of  the  Creator  are  to  those  of  man  1 " 

This  must  mean  one  of  two  things :  either  that  the 
living  instrument  was  made  and  perfected  under  (which 
is  the  same  thing  as  by)  an  intelligent  First  Cause,  or 
that  it  was  not.  If  it  was,  then  theism  is  asserted ; 
and  as  to  the  mode  of  operation,  how  do  we  know,  and 
why  must  we  believe,  that,  fitting  precedent  forms 
being  in  existence,  a  living  instrument  (so  different 

*  Page  188,  EDgUsh  edition. 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  WJ 

from  a  lifeless  manufacture)  would  be  originated  and 
perfected  in  any  other  way,  or  that  this  is  not  the  fit- 
ting way  1  If  it  means  that  it  was  not,  if  he  so  misuses 
words  that  by  the  Creator  he  intends  an  unintelligent 
power,  undirected  force,  or  necessity,  then  he  has  put 
his  case  so  as  to  invite  disbelief  in  it.  For  then  blind 
forces  have  produced  not  only  manifest  adaptations 
of  means  to  specific  ends — which  is  absurd  enough — 
but  better  adjusted  and  more  perfect  instruments  or 
machines  than  intellect  (that  is,  human  intellect)  can 
contrive  and  human  skill  execute — which  no  sane  per- 
son will  believe. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Darwin  even  admits — we 
will  not  say  adopts — the  theistic  view,  he  may  save 
himself  much  needless  trouble  in  the  endeavor  to  ac- 
count for  the  absence  of  every  sort  of  intemiediate 
form.  Those  in  the  line  between  one  species  and  an- 
other supposed  to  be  derived  from  it  he  may  be  bound 
to  provide ;  but  as  to  "  an  infinite  number  of  other 
varieties  not  intermediate,  gross,  rude,  and  purposeless, 
the  unmeaning  creations  of  an  unconscious  cause," 
born  only  to  perish,  which  a  relentless  reviewer  has 
imposed  upon  his  theory — rightly  enough  upon  the 
atheistic  alternative — the  theistic  view  rids  him  at  once 
Kjl  this  "  scum  of  creation."  For,  as  species  do  not 
now  vary  at  all  times  and  places  and  in  all  directions, 
nor  produce  crude,  vague,  imperfect,  and  useless  forms, 
there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  they  ever  did. 
Good-for-nothing  monstrosities,  failures  of  purpose 
rather  than  purposeless,  indeed,  sometimes  occur ;  but 
these  are  just  as  anomalous  and  unlikely  upon  Dar- 
win's theory  as  upon  any  other.     For  his  particular 


148  BARWINIANA. 

theory  IS  based,  and  even  over-strictly  insists,  upon 
the  most  universal  of  physiological  laws,  namely,  that 
successive  generations  shall  differ  only  slightly,  if  at 
all,  from  their  parents ;  and  this  effectively  excludes 
ciTide  and  impotent  forms.  Wherefore,  if  we  believe 
that  the  species  were  designed,  and  that  natural  prop- 
agation was  designed,  how  can^we  say  that  the  actual 
varieties  of  the  species  were  not  equally  designed? 
Have  we  not  similar  grounds  for  inferring  design  in 
the  supposed  varieties  of  species,  that  we  have  in  the 
case  of  the  supposed  species  of  a  genus  ?  When  a  nat- 
uralist comes  to  regard  as  three  closely-related  species 
what  he  before  took  to  be  so  many  varieties  of  one  spe- 
cies, how  has  he  thereby  strengthened  our  conviction 
that  the  three  forms  are  designed  to  have  the  differences 
which  they  actually  exhibit  ?  Wherefore,  so  long  as 
gradatory,  orderly,  and  adapted  forms  in  Nature  argue 
design,  and  at  least  while  the  physical  cause  of  varia- 
tion is  utterly  unknown  and  mysterious,  we  should 
advise  Mr.  Darwin  to  assume,  in  the  philosophy  of  his 
hypothesis,  that  variation  has  been  led  along  certain 
beneficial  lines.  Streams  flowing  over  a  sloping  plain 
by  gravitation  (here  the  counterpart  of  natural  selec- 
tion) may  have  worn  their  actual  channels  as  they 
flowed;  yet  their  particular  courses  may  have  been 
assigned ;  and  where  we  see  them  forming  definite 
and  useful  lines  of  irrigation,  after  a  manner  unac- 
countable on  the  laws  of  gravitation  and  dynamics, 
we  should  believe  that  the  distribution  was  designed. 
To  insist,  therefore,  that  the  new  hj^othesis  of  the 
derivative  origin  of  the  actual  species  is  incompatible 
with  final  causes  and  design,  is  to  take  a  position  which 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  149 

we  must  consider  pliilosoptiically  untenable.  "We  must 
also  regard  it  as  highly  unwise  and  dangerous,  in  the 
present  state  and  present  prospects  of  physical  and 
physiological  science.  We  should  expect  the  philo- 
sophical atheist  or  skeptic  to  take  this  ground  ;  also, 
until  better  informed,  the  unlearned  and  unphilosoph- 
ical  believer ;  but  we  should  think  that  the  thought- 
ful theistic  philosopher  would  take  the  other  side. 
JSTot  to  do  so  seems  to  concede  that  only  supernatural 
events  can  be  shown  to  be  designed,  which  no  theist 
can  admit — seems  also  to  misconceive  the  scope  and 
meaning  of  all  ordinary  arguments  for  design  in  Na- 
ture. This  misconception  is  shared  both  by  the  re- 
viewers and  the  reviewed.  At  least,  Mr.  Darwin  uses 
expressions  which  imply  that  the  natural  forms  which 
surround  us,  because  they  have  a  history  or  natural 
sequence,  could  have  been  only  generally,  but  not  par- 
ticularly designed — a  view  at  once  superficial  and  con- 
tradictory ;  whereas  his  true  line  should  be,  that  his 
hypothesis  concerns  the  ordei'  and  not  the  cause^  the 
how  and  not  the  why  of  the  phenomena,  and  so  leaves 
the  question  of  design  just  where  it  was  before. 

To  illustrate  this  from  the  theist's  point  of  view : 
Transfer  the  question  for  a  moment  from  the  origina- 
tiuii  of  species  to  the  origination  of  individuals,  which 
occurs,  as  we  say,  naturally.  Because  natural,  that  is, 
"  stated,  fixed,  or  settled,"  is  it  any  the  less  designed 
on  that  account  1  We  acknowledge  that  God  is  our 
maker — not  merely  the  originator  of  the  race,  but  our 
maker  as  individuals — and  none  the  less  so  because  it 
pleased  him  to  make  us  in  the  way  of  ordinary  gener- 
ation.    If  any  of  us  were  born  unlike  our  parents  and 


150  DARWIFIANA. 

grandparents,  in  a  sliglit  degree,  or  in  whatever  de- 
gree, would  tlie  case  be  altered  in  this  regard  ? 

The  whole  argument  in  natural  theology  proceeds 
upon  the  ground  that  the  inference  for  a  final  cause  of 
the  structui'e  of  the  hand  and  of  the  valves  in  the  veins 
is  just  as  vaHd  now,  in  individuals  produced  through 
natural  generation,  as  it  would  have  been  in  the  case  of 
the  first  man,  supernaturally  created.  Why  not,  then, 
just  as  good  even  on  the  supposition  of  the  descent  of 
men  from  chimpanzees  and  gorillas,  since  those  ani- 
mals possess  these  same  contrivances  ?  Or,  to  take  a 
more  supposable  case :  If  the  argument  from  structure 
to  design  is  convincing  when  drawn  from  a  particular 
animal,  say  a  ITewf  oundland  dog,  and  is  not  weakened 
by  the  knowledge  that  this  dog  came  from  similar  par- 
ents, would  it  be  at  all  weakened  if,  in  tracing  his 
genealogy,  it  were  ascertained  that  he  was  a  remote 
descendant  of  the  mastiff  or  some  other  breed,  or  that 
both  these  and  other  breeds  came  (as  is  suspected)  from 
some  wolf?  If  not,  how  is  the  argument  for  design  in 
the  structure  of  om'  particular  dog  affected  by  the  sup- 
position that  his  wolfish  progenitor  came  from  a  post- 
tertiary  wolf,  perhaps  less  unlike  an  existing  one  than 
the  dog  in  question  is  to  some  other  of  the  numerous 
existing  races  of  dogs,  and  that  this  post-tertiary  came 
from  an  equally  or  more  different  tertiary  wolf  ?  And 
if  the  argument  from  structure  to  design  is  not  invali- 
dated by  our  present  knowledge  that  our  individual 
dog  was  developed  from  a  single  organic  cell,  how  is 
it  invalidated  by  the  supposition  of  an  analogous 
natural  descent,  through  a  long  line  of  connected  forms, 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  151 

from  such  a  cell,  or  from  some  simple  animal,  existing 
ages  before  there  were  any  dogs  ? 

Again,  suppose  we  have  two  well-known  and  ap- 
parently most  decidedly  different  animals  or  plants,  A 
and  D,  both  presenting,  in  their  structure  and  in  their 
adaptations  to  the  conditions  of  existence,  as  valid  and 
clear  evidence  of  design  as  any  animal  or  plant  ever 
presented :  suppose  we  have  now  discovered  two  inter- 
mediate species,  B  and  C,  which  make  up  a  series  with 
equable  differences  from  A  to  D.  Is  the  proof  of 
design  or  final  cause  in  A  and  D,  whatever  it  amount- 
ed to,  at  all  weakened  by  the  discovery  of  the  inter- 
mediate' forms  ?  Kather  does  not  the  proof  extend  to 
the  intermediate  species,  and  go  to  show  that  all  four 
were  equally  designed  ?  Suppose,  now,  the  number 
of  intermediate  forms  to  be  much  increased,  and  there- 
fore the  gradations  to  be  closer  yet — as  close  as  those 
between  the  various  sorts  of  dogs,  or  races  of  men,  or 
of  horned  cattle :  would  the  evidence  of  design,  as 
shown  in  the  structure  of  any  of  the  members  of  the 
series,  be  any  weaker  than  it  was  in  the  case  of  A  and 
D  ?  Whoever  contends  that  it  would  be,  shoidd  like- 
wise maintain  that  the  origination  of  individuals  by 
generation  is  incompatible  with  design,  or  an  impos- 
sibility in  Nature.  We  might  all  have  confidently 
thought  the  latter,  antecedently  to  experience  of  the 
fact  of  reproduction.  Let  our  experience  teach  us 
wisdom. 

These  illustrations  make  it  clear  that  the  evidence 
of  design  from  structure  and  adaptation  is  furnished 
corwplete  by  the  individual  animal  or  plant  itself,  and 
that  our  knowledge  or  our  ignorance  of  the  history  of 


152  DAE  WimANA. 

its  formation  or  mode  of  production  adds  nothing  to 
it  and  takes  nothing  away.  "We  infer  design  from 
certain  arrangements  and  results  ;  and  we  have  no  oth- 
er way  of  ascertaining  it.  Testimony,  unless  infallible, 
cannot  prove  it,  and  is  out  of  the  question  here. 
Testimony  is  not  the  ajyjyrojyriate  proof  of  design: 
adaj)tatio7i  to  jpurjyose  is.  Some  arrangements  in 
JSTature  appear  to  be  contrivances,  but  may  leave  us  in 
doubt.  Many  others,  of  which  the  eye  and  the  hand 
are  notable  examples,  compel  belief  with  a  force  not 
appreciably  short  of  demonstration.  Clearly  to  settle 
that  such  as  these  must  have  been  designed  goes  far 
toward  proving  that  other  organs  and  other  seemingly 
less  explicit  adaptations  in  ]!!^ature  must  also  have  been 
designed,  and  chnches  our  belief,  from  manifold  con- 
siderations, that  all  Nature  is  a  preconcerted  arrange- 
ment, a  manifested  design.  A  strange  contradiction 
would  it  be  to  insist  that  the  shape  and  markings  of 
certain  rude  pieces  of  flint,  lately  found  in  drift-de- 
posits, prove  design,  but  that  nicer  and  thousand-fold 
more  complex  adaptations  to  use  in  animals  and  vege- 
tables do  not  a  fortiori  argue  design. 

"We  could  not  affirm  that  the  arguments  for  design 
in  ^Nature  are  conclusive  to  all  minds.  But  we  may 
insist,  upon  grounds  already  intimated,  that,  whatever 
they  were  good  for  before  Darwin's  book  appeared, 
they  are  good  for  now.  To  our  minds  the  argument 
from  design  always  appeared  conclusive  of  -  the  being 
and  continued  operation  of  .an  intelligent  First  Cause, 
the  Ordainer  of  JSTature ;  and  we  do  not  see  that  the 
grounds  of  such  belief  would  be  disturbed  or  shifted 
])y  the  adoption  of  Darwin's  hypothesis.     We  are  not 


DARWm  AND  HIS  EEYIEWERS,  153 

blind  to  the  philosophical  difficulties  which  the  thor- 
oughgoing implication  of  design  in  ]^ature  has  to 
encounter,  nor  is  it  our  vocation  to  obviate  them.  It 
suffices  us  to  know  that  they  are  not  new  nor  peculiar 
difficulties — that,  as  Darwin's  theorv  and  our  reason- 
ings  upon  it  did  not  raise  these  perturbing  spirits,  they 
are  not  bound  to  lay  them.  Meanwhile,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  design  encounters  the  very  same  difficulties 
in  the  material  that  it  does  in  the  moral  world  is  just 
what  ought  to  be  expected. 

So  the  issue  between  the  skeptic  and  the  theist  is 
only  the  old  one,  long  ago  argued  out — ^namely,  wheth- 
er organic  Mature  is  a  result  of  design  or  of  chance. 
Variation  and  natural  selection  open  no  third  alterna- 
tive ;  they  concern  only  the  question  how  the  results, 
whether  fortuitous  or  designed,  may  have  been  brought 
about.  Organic  ISTature  abounds  with  unmistakable 
and  irresistible  indications  of  design,  and,  being  a  con- 
nected and  consistent  system,  this  evidence  carries  the 
implication  of  design  throughout  the  whole.  On  the 
other  hand,  chance  carries  no  probabilities  with  it,  can 
never  be  developed  into  a  consistent  system,  but,  when 
applied  to  the  explanation  of  orderly  or  beneficial 
results,  heaps  up  improbabilities  at  every  step  beyond 
all  computation.  To  us,  a  fortuitous  Cosmos  is  simply 
inconceivable.     The  alternative  is  a  designed  Cosmos. 

It  is  very  easy  to  assume  that,  because  events  in 
Nature  are  in  one  sense  accidental,  and  the  operative 
forces  which  bring  them  to  pass  are  themselves  blind 
and  unintelligent  (physically  considered,  all  forces 
are),  therefore  they  are  undirected,  or  that  he  who 
describes  these  events  as  the  results  of  such   forces 


154  DARWimANA. 

thereby  assumes  that  they  are  undirected.  This  is  the 
assumption  of  the  Boston  reviewers,  and  of  Mr.  Agas- 
siz,  who  insists  that  the  only  alternative  to  the  doc- 
trine, that  all  organized  beings  were  supernaturally 
created  just  as  they  are,  is,  that  they  have  arisen  sj^on- 
taneously  through  the  omnijpotence  of  matter.^ 

As  to  all  this,  nothing  is  easier  than  to  bring  out 
in  the  conclusion  what  you  introduce  in  the  premises. 
If  you  import  atheism  into  your  conception  of  vari- 
ation and  natural  selection,  you  can  readily  exhibit  it 
in  the  result.  If  you  do  not  put  it  in,  perhaps  there 
need  be  none  to  come  out.  While  the  mechanician  is 
considering  a  steamboat  or  locomotive-engine  as  a  mar 
terial  organism,  and  contemplating  the  fuel,  water,  and 
steam,  the  source  of.  the  mechanical  forces,  and  how 
they  operate,  he  may  not  have  occasion  to  mention 
the  engineer.  But,  the  orderly  and  special  results  ac- 
complished, the  why  the  movements  are  in  this  or  that 
particular  direction,  etc.,  is  inexplicable  without  him. 
If  Mr.  Dar^^dn  believes  that  the  events  which  he  sup- 
poses to  have  occurred  and  the  results  we  behold  were 
undirected  and  undesigned,  or  if  the  physicist  be- 
lieves that  the  natural  forces  to  which  he  refers  phe- 
nomena are  uncaused  and  undirected,  no  argument  is 
needed  to  show  that  such  belief  is  atheism.  But  the 
admission  of  the  phenomena  and  of  these  natural  pro- 
cesses and  forces  does  not  necessitate  any  such  belief, 
nor  even  render  it  one  whit  less  improbable  than 
before. 

Surely,  too,  the  accidental  element  may  play  its 
part  in  I^ature  without  negativing  design  in  the  the- 

'  In  American  Journal  of  Science,  July,  1860,  pp.  147-149. 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  EEVIEWERS.  I55 

ist's  view.  He  believes  that  the  earth's  surface  has 
been  very  gradually  prepared  for  man  and  the  existing 
animal  races,  that  vegetable  matter  has  through  a  long 
series  of  generations  imparted  fertility  to  the  soil  in 
order  that  it  may  support  its  present  occupants,  that 
even  beds  of  coal  have  been  stored  up  for  man's  bene- 
fit. Yet  what  is  more  accidental,  and  more  simply  the 
consequence  of  physical  agencies,  than  the  accumula- 
tion of  vegetable  matter  in  a  peat-bog,  and  its  trans- 
formation into  coal  ?  Is^o  scientific  person  at  this  day 
doubts  that  our  solar  system  is  a  progressive  develop- 
ment, whether  in  his  conception  he  begins  with  molten 
masses,  or  aeriform  or  nebulous  masses,  or  with  a  fluid 
revolving  mass  of  vast  extent,  from  which  the  specific 
existing  worlds  have  been  developed  one  by  one. 
What  theist  doubts  that  the  actual  results  of  the  de- 
velopment in  the  inorganic  worlds  are  not  merely 
compatible  with  design,  but  are  in  the  truest  sense 
designed  results?  Not  Mr.  Agassiz,  certainly,  who 
adopts  a  remarkable  illustration  of  design  directly 
founded  on  the  nebular  hypothesis,  drawing  from  the 
position  and  times  of  the  revolution  of  the  world,  so 
originated,  "direct  evidence  that  the  physical  world 
has  been  ordained  in  conformity  with  laws  which  ob- 
tam  also  among  living  beings."  But  the  reader  of  the 
interesting  exposition^  will  notice  that  the  designed 
result  has  been  brought  to  pass  through  what,  speak- 
ing after  the  manner  of  men,  might  be  called  a  chapter 
of  accidents. 

A  natural  corollary  of  this  demonstration  would 

» In  "  Contributions  to  the  Natural  History  of  the  United  States,  " 
vol.  i.,  pp.  128,  129. 


156  DARWINIANA. 

seem  to  be,  tliat  a  material  connection  between  a  series 
of  created  tilings — sucli  as  the  development  of  onaof 
tbem  from  another,  or  of  all  from  b,  common  stock — is 
highly  compatible  with  their  intellectual  connection, 
namely,  with  their  being  designed  and  directed  by 
one  mind.  Tet  upon  some  gronnd  which  is  not  ex- 
plained, and  which  we  are  unable  to  conjecture,  Mr. 
Agassiz  concludes  to  the  contrary  in  the  organic  king- 
doms, and  insists  that,  because  the  members  of  such  a 
series  have  an  intellectual  connection,  "they  cannot 
be  the  result  of  a  material  differentiation  of  the  ob- 
jects themselves,"  ^  that  is,  they  cannot  have  had  a 
genealogical  connection.  But  is  there  not  as  much 
intellectual  connection  between  the  successive  genera- 
tions of  any  species  as  there  is  between  the  several 
species  of  a  genus,  or  the  several  genera  of  an  order  ? 
As  the  intellectual  connection  here  is  realized  through 
the  material  connection,  why  may  it  not  be  so  in  the 
case  of  species  and  genera?  On  all  sides,  therefore, 
the  implication  seems  to  be  quite  the  other  way. 

Hetm-ning  to  the  accidental  element,  it  is  evident 
that  the  strongest  point  against  the  compatibility  of 
Darwin's  hyj)othesis  w^ith  design  in  JSTature  is  made 
when  natural  selection  is  referred  to  as  picking  out 
those  variations  which  are  improvements  from  a  vast 
number  which  are  not  improvements,  but  perhaps  the 
contrary,  and  therefore  useless  or  purposeless,  and 
born  to  perish.  But  even  here  the  difficulty  is  not 
peculiar ;  for  Mature  abounds  with  analogous  instances. 
Some  of  our  race  are  useless,  or  worse,  as  regards 

^  "  Contributions  to  the  Natural  History  of  the  United  States,"  yol. 
i.,  p.  130 ;  and  American  Journal  of  Science^  July,  1860,  p.  143. 


JDARWm  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  157 

tKe  improvement  of  mankind ;  yet  tlie  race  may  be 
designed  to  improve,  and  may  be  actually  improving. 
Or,  to  avoid  the  complication  with  free  agency — tlie 
whole  animate  life  of  a  country  depends  absolutely 
upon  the  vegetation,  the  vegetation  upon  the  rain. 
The  moisture  is  furnished  by  the  ocean,  is  raised  by 
the  sun's  heat  from  the  ocean's  surface,  and  is  wafted 
inland  by  the  winds.  But  what  multitudes  of  rain- 
drops fall  back  into  the  ocean — are  as  much  without  a 
final  cause  as  the  incipient  varieties  which  come  to 
nothing!  Does  it  therefore  follow  that  the  rains 
which  are  bestowed  upon  the  soil  with  such  rule  and 
average  regularity  wei'e  not  designed  to  support  vege- 
table and  animal  life  ?  Consider,  likewise,  the  vast 
proportion  of  seeds  and  pollen,  of  ova  and  young — a 
thousand  or  more  to  one — which  come  to  nothing, 
and  are  therefore  purposeless  in  the  same  sense,  and 
only  in  the  same  sense,  as  are  Darwin's  unimproved 
and  unused  slight  variations.  The  world  is  full  of 
such  cases ;  and  these  must  answer  the  argument — for 
we  cannot,  except  by  thus  showing  that  it  proves  too 
much. 

Finally,  it  is  worth  noticing  that,  though  natural 
selection  is  scientifically  explicable,  variation  is  not. 
Thus  far  the  cause  of  variation,  or  the  reason  why  the 
ottspring  is  sometimes  unlike  the  parents,  is  just  as 
mysterious  as  the  reason  why  it  is  generally  like  the 
parents.  It  is  now  as  inexplicable  as  any  other  origi- 
nation ;  and,  if  ever  explained,  the  explanation  will 
only  carry  up  the  sequence  of  secondary  causes  one  step 
farther,  and  bring  us  in  face  of  a  somewhat  different 
problem,  but  which  will  have   the  same  element  of 


158  DARWINIANA. 

mystery  tliat  the  problem  of  variation  lias  now.  Cir- 
cmnstances  may  preserve  or  may  destroy  the  variations ; 
man  may  nse  or  direct  them ;  but  selection,  whether 
artificial  or  natnral,  no  more  originates  them  than 
man  originates  the  power  which  turns  a  wheel,  when 
he  dams  a  stream  and  lets  the  water  fall  upon  it.  The 
origination  of  this  power  is  a  question  about  efficient 
cause.  The  tendency  of  science  in  respect  to  this  ob- 
viously is  not  toward  the  omnipotence  of  matter,  as 
some  suppose,  but  toward  the  omnipotence  of  spirit. 

So  the  real  question  we  come  to  is  as  to  the  way  in 
which  we  are  to  conceive  intelligent  and  efiicient  cause 
to  be  exerted,  and  upon  what  exerted.  Are  we  bomid 
to  suppose  efiiicient  cause  in  all  cases  exerted  upon 
nothing  to  evoke  something  into  existence — and  this 
thousands  of  times  repeated,  when  a  slight  change  in 
the  details  would  make  all  the  difference  between  suc- 
cessive species?  "Why  may  not  the  new  species,  or 
some  of  them,  be  designed  diversifications  of  the  old? 

There  are,  perhaps,  only  three  views  of  efficient 
cause  which  may  claim  to  be  both  philosophical  and 
theistic : 

1.  The  view  of  its  exertion  at  the  beginning  of 
time,  endowing  matter  and  created  things  with  forces 
which  do  the  work  and  produce  the  phenomena. 

2.  This  same  view,  with  the  theory  of  insulated 
interpositions,  or  occasional  direct  action,  engrafted 
upon  it — the  view  that  events  and  operations  in  gen- 
eral go  on  in  virtue  simply  of  forces  communicated  at 
the  first,  but  that  now  and  then,  and  only  now  and 
then,  the  Deity  puts  his  hand  directly  to  the  work. 

3.  The  theory  of  the  immediate,  orderly,  and  con- 


DAEWm  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  159 

stant,  however  infinitely  diversified,  action  of  the  in- 
telligent efficient  Cause. 

It  must  be  allowed  that,  while  the  third  is  preemi- 
nently the  Christian  view,  all  three  are  philosophi- 
cally compatible  with  design  in  JSTature.  The  second 
is  probably  the  popular  conception.  Perhaps  most 
thoughtful  people  oscillate  from  the  middle  view  tow- 
ard the  first  or  the  third — adopting  the  first  on  some 
occasions,  the  third  on  others.  Those  philosophers 
who  like  and  expect  to  settle  all  mooted  questions 
will  take  one  or  the  other  extreme.  The  Examiner 
inclines  toward,  the  North  American  reviewer  fully 
adopts,  the  third  view,  to  the  logical  extent  of  main- 
taining that  "  the  origin  of  an  individual^  as  well  as 
the  origin  of  a  species  or  a  genus,  can  be  explained 
only  by  the  direct  action  of  an  intelligent  creative 
cause."  To  silence  his  critics,  this  is  the  line  for  Mr. 
Darwin  to  take ;  for  it  at  once  and  completely  relieves 
his  scientific  theory  from  every  theological  objection 
which  his  reviewers  have  urged  against  it. 

At  present  we  suspect  that  our  author  prefers  the 
first  conception,  though  he  might  contend  that  his  hy- 
pothesis is  compatible  with  either  of  the  three.  That 
it  is  also  compatible  with  an  atheistic  or  pantheistic 
conception  of  the  universe,  is  an  objection  which, 
being  shared  by  all  physical,  and  some  ethical  or 
moral  science,  cannot  specially  be  urged  against  Dar- 
win's system.  As  he  rejects  spontaneous  generation, 
and  admits  of  intervention  at  the  beginning  of  organic 
life,  and  probably  in  more  than  one  instance,  he  is 
not  wholly  excluded  from  adopting  the  middle  view, 
although  the  interventions  he  would  allow  are  few  and 


160  DARWINIANA. 

far  back.  Yet  one  interposition  admits  the  principle 
as  well  as  more.  Interposition  presupposes  particular 
necessity  or  reason  for  it,  and  raises  the  question,  when 
and  how  often  it  may  have  been  necessary.  It  might 
be  the  natural  su]3position,  if  we  had  only  one  set  of 
species  to  account  for,  or  if  the  successive  mhabitants 
of  the  earth  had  no  other  connections  or  resemblances 
than  those  which  adaptation  to  similar  conditions, 
which  final  causes  in  the  narrower  sense,  might  ex- 
plain. But  if  this  explanation  of  organic  I^ature  re- 
quires one  to  "believe  that,  at  innumerable  periods 
in  the  earth's  history,  certain  elemental  atoms  have 
been  commanded  suddenly  to  flash  into  living  tissues," 
and  this  when  the  results  are  seen  to  be  strictly  con- 
nected and  systematic,  we  cannot  wonder  that  such 
interventions  should  at  length  be  considered,  not  as 
interpositions  or  interferences,  but  rather — ^to  use  the 
reviewer's  own  language — as  "  exertions  so  frequent 
and  beneficent  that  we  come  to  regard  them  as  the  or- 
dinary action  of  Him  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
earth,  and  without  whom  not  a  sparrow  falleth  to  the 
ground."  ^ 

What  does  the  difference  between  Mr.  Darwin  and 
his  reviewer  now  amount  to  ?  If  we  say  that  accord- 
ing to  one  view  the  origination  of  species  is  natural^ 
according  to  the  other  tniraculous^  Mr.  Darwin  agrees 
that  "what  is  natural  as  much  requires  and  presup- 
poses an  intelligent  mind  to  render  it  so — that  is,  to 
eifect  it  continually  or  at  stated  times — as  what  is  su- 
pernatural does  to  effect  it  for  once."  "^     He  merely 

'  North  Americayi  Review  for  April,  1S60,  p,  506. 
2  Vide  motto  from  Butler,  prefixed  to  the  second  edition  of  Darwin's 
work. 


DABWm  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  Id 

inquires  into  the  form  of  the  miracle,  may  remind  us 
that  all  recorded  miracles  (except  the  primal  creation 
of  matter)  were  transformations  or  actions  in  and  up- 
on natural  things,  and  will  ask  how  many  times  and 
how  frequently  may  the  origination  of  successive  spe- 
cies be  repeated  before  the  supernatural  merges  in  the 
natural. 

In  short,  Darwin  maintains  that  the  origination  of 
a  species,  no  less  than  that  of  an  individual,  is  natural ; 
the  reviewer,  that  the  natural  origination  of  an  indi- 
vidual, no  less  than  the  origination  of  a  species,  re- 
quires and  presupposes  Divine  power.  A  fortiori, 
then,  the  origination  of  a  variety  requires  and  j)resup- 
poses  Divine  power.  And  so  between  the  scientific 
hypothesis  of  the  one  and  the  philosophical  concep- 
tion of  the  other  no  contrariety  remains.  And  so, 
concludes  the  Worth  American  reviewer,  ''  a  proper 
view  of  the  nature  of  causation  ....  places  the 
vital  doctrine  of  the  being  and  the  providence  of  a 
God  on  ground  that  can  never  be  shaken."  ^  A  wor- 
thy conclusion,  and  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  denun- 
ciations and  arguments  of  the  rest  of  the  article,  so  far 
as  philosophy  and  natural  theology  are  concerned.  If 
a  writer  must  needs  use  his  own  favorite  dogma  as  a 
weapon  with  which  to  give  coup  de  grace  to  a  perni- 
cluus  theory,  he  should  be  careful  to  seize  his  edge- 
tool  by  the  handle,  and  not  by  the  blade. 

We  can  barely  glance  at  a  subsidiary  philosophical 
objection  of  the  North  American  reviewer,  which  the 
Examiner  also  raises,  though  less  explicitly.  Like 
all  geologists,  Mr.  Darwin  draws  upon  time  in  the 

*  North  American  Review^  loc.  cit.,  p.  504. 


162  DARWINIANA. 

most  unlimited  manner.  He  is  not  peculiar  in  tliis 
regard.  Mr.  Agassiz  tells  us  that  the  con\dction 
is  "now  universal,  among  well-informed  naturalists, 
that  this  globe  has  been  in  existence  for  innumerable 
ages,  and  that  the  length  of  time  elapsed  since  it  first 
became  inhabited  cannot  be  counted  in  years ; "  Pic- 
tet,  that  the  imagination  refuses  to  calculate  the  im- 
mense number  of  years  and  of  ages  during  which  th-e 
fauTias  of  thirty  or  more  epochs  have  succeeded  one 
another,  and  developed  their  long  succession  of  gen- 
erations. I^ow,  the  reviewer  declares  that  such  indefi- 
nite succession  of  ages  is  "  virtually  infinite,"  "lacks 
no  characteristic  of  eternity  except  its  name,"  at  least, 
that  "  the  difference  between  such  a  conception  and 
that  of  the  strictly  infinite,  if  any,  is  not  appreciable." 
But  infinity  belongs  to  metaphysics.  Therefore,  he 
concludes,  Darwin  supports  his  theory,  not  by  scien- 
tific but  by  metaphysical  evidence ;  his  theory  is  "  es- 
sentially and  completely  metaphysical  in  character,  rest- 
ing altogether  upon  that  idea  of  '  the  infinite '  which 
the  human  mind  can  neither  put  aside  nor  compre- 
hend." "  And  so  a  theory  which  will  be  generally 
regarded  as  much  too  physical  is  transferred*  by  a 
single  syllogism  to  metaphysics. 

Well,  physical  geology  must  go  with  it :  for,  even 
on  the  soberest  view,  it  demands  an  indefinitely  long 
time  antecedent  to  the  introduction  of  organic  life' 
upon  om'  earth.  A  fortiori  is  physical  astronomy  a 
branch  of  metaphysics,  demanding,  as  it  does,  still 
larger  "instalments  of  infinity,"  as  the  reviewer  calls 
them,  both  as  to  time  and  number.     Moreover,  far  the 

^  North  American  Review^  loc.  cit.,  p.  48Y,  et passim. 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  163 

greater  part  of  physical  inquiries  now  relate  to  mo- 
lecular actions,  wliich,  a  distinguished  natural  philoso- 
pher informs  us,  "  we  have  to  regard  as  the  results  of 
an  infinite  number  of  infinitely  small  material  parti- 
cles, acting  on  each  other  at  infinitely  small  distances  " 
— a  triad  of  infinities — and  so  jphysics  becomes  the 
most  metajyhysical  of  sciences.  Yerilj,  if  this  style  of 
reasoning  is  to  prevail — 

"  Thinking  is  but  an  idle  waste  of  thought, 
And  naught  is  everything,  and  everything  is  naught." 

The  leading  objection  of  Mr.  Agassiz  is  likewise  of 
a  philosophical  character.  It  is,  that  species  exist  only 
"  as  categories  of  thought " — that,  having  no  material 
existence,  they  can  have  had  no  material  variation,  and 
no  material  community  of  origin.  Here  the  predica- 
tion is  of  species  in  the  subjective  sense,  the  inference 
in  the  objective  sense.  Keduced  to  plain  terms,  the 
argument  seems  to  be :  Species  are  ideas ;  therefore 
the  objects  from  which  the  idea  is  derived  cannot  vary 
or  blend,  and  cannot  have  had  a  genealogical  connec- 
tion. 

The  common  view  of  species  is,  that,  although  they 
are  generalizations,  yet  they  have  a  direct  objective 
ground  in  ITature,  which  genera,  orders,  etc.,  have  not. 
According  to  the  succinct  definition  of  Jussieu — and 
that  of  Linnaeus  is  identical  in  meaning — a  species  is 
the  perennial  succession  of  similar  individuals  in  con- 
tinued generations.  The  species  is  the  chain  of  which 
the  individuals  are  the  links.  The  sum  of  the  genea- 
logically-connected similar  individuals  constitutes  the 
species,  which  thus  has  an  actuality  and  ground  of  dis- 


164  LARWINIANA. 

tinction  not  shared  bj  genera  and  other  groups  which 
were  not  supposed  to  be  genealogically  connected. 
How  a  derivative  hypothesis  would  modify  this  view, 
in  assigning  to  species  only  a  temporary  fixity,  is  ob- 
vious. Yet,  if  naturalists  adopt  that  hypothesis,  they 
will  still  retain  Jussieu's  definition,  which  leaves  un- 
touched the  question  as  to  how  and  when  the  "  peren- 
nial successions  "  were  established.  The  practical  ques- 
tion will  only  be.  How  much  difference  between  two 
sets  of  individuals  entitles  them  to  rank  under  distinct 
species?  and  that  is  the  practical  question  now,  on 
whatever  theory.  The  theoretical  question  is — as 
stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  article — whether  these 
specific  lines  were  always  as  distinct  as  now. 

Mr.  Agassiz  has  "  lost  no  opportunity  of  urging 
the  idea  that,  while  species  have  no  material  existence, 
they  yet  exist  as  categories  of  thought  in  the  same  way 
[and  only  in  the  same  way]  as  genera,  families,  orders, 
classes,"  etc.     He 

"has  taken  the  ground  that  all  the  natural  divisions  in  the  ani- 
mal kingdom  are  primarily  distinct,  founded  upon  different 
categories  of  characters,  and  that  all  exist  in  the  same  way, 
that  is,  as  categories  of  thought,  embodied  in  individual  living 
forms.  I  have  attempted  to  show  that  branches  in  the  animal 
kingdom  are  founded  upon  different  plans  of  structure,  and  for 
that  very  reason  have  embraced  from  the  beginning  representa- 
tives between  which  there  could  be  no  community  of  origin ; 
that  classes  are  founded  upon  different  modes  of  execution  of 
these  plans,  and  therefore  they  also  embrace  representatives 
which  could  have  no  community  of  origin ;  that  orders  repre- 
sent the  different  degrees  of  complication  in  the  mode  of  execu- 
tion of  each  class,  and  therefore  embrace  representatives  which" 
could  not  have  a  community  of  origin  any  more  than  the  mem- 
bers of  different  classes  or  branches ;  that  families  are  founded 


DARWIN  AND  EI8  REVIEWERS.  105 

upon  different  patterns  of  form,  and  embrace  representatives 
equally  independent  in  their  origin ;  that  genera  are  founded 
upon  ultimate  peculiarities  of  structure,  embracing  representa- 
tives wbicb,  from  tbe  very  nature  of  their  peculiarities,  could 
have  no  community  of  origin ;  and  that,  finally,  species  are 
based  upon  relations  and  proportions  that  exclude,  as  much  as 
all  the  preceding  distinctions,  the  idea  of  a  common  descent. 

"  As  the  community  of  characters  among  the  beings  belong- 
ing to  these  different  categories  arises  from  the  intellectual  con- 
nection which  shows  them  to  be  categories  of  thought,  they 
cannot  be  the  result  of  a  gradual  material  differentiation  of  the 
objects  themselves.  The  argument  on  which  these  views  are 
founded  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  few  words : 
Species,  genera,  families,  etc.,  exist  as  thoughts,  individuals  as 
facts." » 

An  ingenious  dilemma  caps  the  argmnent : 

"It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  much  confusio^n  of  ideas  in 
the  general  statement  of  the  variability  of  species  so  often  re- 
peated lately.  If  species  do  not  exist  at  all,  as  the  supporters 
of  the  transmutation  theory  maintain,  how  can  they  vary  ?  and 
if  individuals  alone  exist,  how  can  the  differences  which  may  be 
observed  among  them  prove  the  variability  of  species?  " 

JSTow,  we  imagine  tliat  Mr.  Darwin  need  not  be 
dangerously  gored  by  either  born  of  tliis  curious  di- 
lemma. Although  we  ourselves  cherish  old-fashioned 
prejudices  in  favor  of  the  probable  permanence,  and 
therefore  of  a  more  stable  objective  ground  of  species, 
yet  we  agree — and  Mr.  Darwin  will  agree  fully  with 
Mr.  Agassiz — that  species,  and  he  will  add  varieties, 
"  exist  as  categories  of  thought,"  that  is,  as  cognizable 
distinctions — which  is  all  that  we  can  make  of  the 
phrase  here,  whatever  it  may  mean  in  the  Aristotelian 
metaphysics.     Admitting  that  species   are  only  cate- 

*  la  American  Journal  of  Science^  July,  1860,  p.  143. 
8 


166  •  DARWmiANA, 

gories  of  thoiiglit,  and  not  facts  or  things,  liow  does 
tMs  prevent  the  individuals,  which  are.  material  things, 
from  having  varied  in  the  course  of  time,  so  as  to 
exemplify  the  present  almost  innumerable  categories 
of  thought,  or  embodiments  of  Divine  thought  in  ma- 
terial forms,  or — viewed  on  the  human  side — in  forms 
marked  with  such  orderly  and  graduated  resemblances 
and  differences  as  to  suggest  to  our  minds  the  idea  of 
species,  genera,  orders,  etc.,  and  to  our  reason  the  in- 
ference of  a  Divine  Original  ?  We  have  no  clear  idea 
how  Mr.  Agassiz  intends  to  answer  this  question,  in 
saying  that  branches  are  founded  upon  diif erent  plans 
of  structure,  classes  upon  different  mode  of  execution 
of  these  plans,  orders  on  different  degrees  of  compli- 
cation in  the  mode  of  execution,  families  upon  diflerent 
patterns  of  form,  genera  upon  ultimate  peculiarities 
of  structure,  and  species  upon  relations  and  propor- 
tions. That  is,  we  do  not  perceive  how  these  several 
"  categories  of  thought "  exclude  the  possibility  or  the 
probability  that  the  individuals  which  manifest  or 
suggest  the  thoughts  had  an  ultimate  community  of 


origm. 


Moreover,  Mr.  Darwin  might  insinuate  that  the 
particular  pliilosophy  of  classification  upon  which  this 
whole  argument  reposes  is  as  purely  hypothetical  and 
as  little  accepted  as  is  his  own  doctrine.  If  both  are 
pure  hypotheses,  it  is  hardly  fair  or  satisfactory  to  ex- 
tinguish the  one  by  the  other.  If  there  is  no  real  con- 
tradiction between  them,  nothing  is  gained  by  the 
attempt. 

As  to  the  dilemma  propounded,  suppose  we  try  it 
upon  that  category  of  thought  which  we  call  chair. 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  EEVIEWEES.  1G7 

Tliis  is  a  genus,  comprising  a  common  chair  {Sella  vul- 
garis), arm  or  easy  cliair  {S.  cathedra),  tlie  rocking-cliair 
(S.  oscillans) — widely  distributed  in  the  United  States 
— and  some  others,  each  of  which  has  sported,  as  the 
gardeners  say,  into  many  varieties.  But  now,  as  the 
genus  and  the  species  have  no  material  existence,  how 
can  they  vary  ?  If  only  individual  chairs  exist,  how  can 
the  differences  which  may  be  observed  among  them 
prove  the  variability  of  the  species  %  To  which  we  re- 
ply by  asking,  Which  does  the  question  refer  to,  the 
category  of  thought,  or  the  individual  embodiment? 
If  the  former,  then  we  would  remark  that  our  cate- 
gories of  thought  vary  from  time  to  time  in  the  readi- 
est manner.  And,  although  the  Divine  thoughts  are 
eternal,  yet  they  are  manifested  to  us  in  time  and  suc- 
cession, and  by  their  manifestation  only  can  we  know 
them,  how  imperfectly !  Allowing  that  what  has  no 
material  existence  can  have  had  no  material  connection 
or  variation,  we  should  yet  infer  that  what  has  intel- 
lectual existence  and  connection  might  have  intellectual 
variation ;  and,  turning  to  the  individuals,  which  repre- 
sent the  species,  we  do  not  see  how  all  this  shows  that 
they  may  not  vary.  Observation  shows  us  that  they 
do.  "Wherefore,  taught  by  fact  that  successive  indi- 
viduals do  vary,  we  safely  infer  that  the  idea  must 
have  varied,  and  that  this  variation  of  the  individual 
representatives  proves  the  variability  of  the  species, 
whether  objectively  or  subjectively  regarded. 

Each  species  or  sort  of  chair,  as  we  have  said,  has 
its  varieties,  and  one  species  shades  off  by  gradations 
into  another.  And — note  it  well — these  numerous 
and  successively  slight  variations  and  gradations,  far 


168  DARWimANA. 

from  suggesting  an  accidental  origin  to  chairs  and  to 
theii'  forms,  are  very  proofs  of  design. 

Again,  edifice  is  a  generic  category  of  thought. 
Egyptian,  Grecian,  Byzantine,  and  Gothic  buildings  are 
well-marked  species,  of  which  each  individual  building 
of  the  sort  is  a  material  embodiment.  !Kow,  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  these  categories  or  ideas  may  not  have 
been  evolved,  one  from  another  in  succession,  or  from 
some  primal,  less  specialized,  edificial  category.  What 
better  e\ddence  for  such  hypothesis  could  we  have  than 
the  variations  and  grades  which  connect  these  species 
with  each  other  ?  We  might  extend  the  parallel,  and 
get  some  good  illustrations  of  natural  selection  from 
the  history  of  architecture,  and  the  origin  of  the  dif- 
ferent styles  under  different  climates  and  conditions. 
Two  considerations  may  qualify  or  limit  the  compari- 
son. One,  that  houses  do  not  propagate,  so  as  to  pro- 
duce continuing  lines  of  each  sort  and  variety  ;  but  this 
is  of  small  moment  on  Agassiz's  view,  he  holding  that 
genealogical  connection  is  not  of  the  essence  of  a 
species  at  all.  The  other,  that  the  formation  and 
development  of  the  ideas  upon  which  human  works 
proceed  are  gradual ;  or,  as  the  same  great  naturalist 
well  states  it,  "while  human  thought  is  consecutive, 
Divine  thought  is  simultaneous."  But  we  have  no 
right  to  affirm  this  of  Divine  action. 

We  must  close  here.  We  meant  to  review  some 
of  the  more  general  scientific  objections  which  we 
thought  not  altogether  tenable,  But,  after  all,  we  are 
not  so  anxious  just  now  to  know  whether  the  new 
theory  is  well  founded  on  facts,  as  whether  it  would 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  EEVIEWERS.  169 

be  harmless  if  it  were.  Besides,  we  feel  quite  unable 
to  answer  some  of  these  objections,  and  it  is  pleasanter 
to  take  up  those  which  one  thinks  he  can. 

Among  the  unanswerable,  perhaps  the  weightiest 
of  the  objections,  is  that  of  the  absence,  in  geological 
deposits,  of  vestiges  of  the  intermediate  forms  which 
the  theory  requires  to  have  existed.  Here  all  that 
Mr.  Darwin  can  do  is  to  insist  upon  the  extreme  im- 
perfection of  the  geological  record  and  the  uncertainty 
of  negative  evidence.  But,  withal,  he  allows  the  force 
of  the  objection  almost  as  much  as  his  opponents  urge 
it — so  much  so,  indeed,  that  two  of  his  English  critics 
turn  the  concession  unfairly  upon  him,  and  charge 
him  with  actually  basing  his  hypothesis  upon  these 
and  similar  difficulties^ — as  if  he  held  it  because  of  the 
difficulties,  and  not  in  spite  of  them ;  a  handsome  re- 
turn for  his  candor ! 

As  to  this  imperfection  of  the  geological  record, 
perhaps  we  should  get  a  fair  and  intelligible  illustra- 
tion of  it  by  imagining  the  existmg  animals  and  plants 
of  IsTew  England,  with  all  their  remains  and  products 
since  the  arrival  of  the  Mayflower,  to  be  annihilated ; 
and  that,  in  the  coming  time,  the  geologists  of  a  new 
colony,  dropped  by  the  !New  Zealand  fleet  on  its  way 
to  explore  the  ruins  of  London,  undertake,  after  fifty 
years  of  examination,  to  reconstruct  in  a  catalogue  the 
flora  and  fauna  of  our  day,  that  is,  from  the  close 
of  the  glacial  period  to  the  present  time.  With  all 
the  advantages  of  a  sm-face  exploration,  what  a  beg- 
garly account  it  would  be !  How  many  of  the  land 
animals  and  plants  which  are  enumerated  in  the  Massa- 
chusetts official  reports  would  it  be  likely  to  contain  ? 


170  BAEWINIANA. 

Another  unanswerable  question  asked  by  the  Bos- 
ton reviewers  is,  Why,  when  structure  and  instinct  or 
habit  vary — as  they  must  have  varied,  on  Darwin's 
hypothesis — they  vary  together  and  harmoniously,  in- 
stead of  vaguely  ?  We  cannot  tell,  because  we  can- 
not tell  why  either  varies  at  all.  Tet,  as  they  both 
do  vary  in  successive  generations — as  is  seen  under 
domestication — and  are  correlated,  we  can  only  ad- 
duce the  fact.  Darwin  may  be  precluded  from  our 
answer,  but  we  may  say  that  they  vary  together  be- 
cause designed  to  do  so.  *  A  reviewer  says  that  the 
chance  of  their  varying  together  is  inconceivably 
small ;  yet,  if  they  do  not,  the  variant  individuals  must 
all  perish.  Then  it  is  well  that  it  is  not  left  to  chance. 
To  refer  to  a  parallel  case :  before  vre  were  born, 
nourishment  and  the  equivalent  to  respiration  took 
place  in  a  certain  way.  But  the  moment  we  were 
ushered  into  this  breathing  world,  our  actions  promptly 
conformed,  both  as  to  respiration  and  nom'ishment, 
to  the  before  unused  structure  and  to  the  new  sur- 
roundings. 

"  Now,"  says  the  Examiner^  "  suppose,  for  instance, 
the  gills  of  an  aquatic  animal  converted  into  lungs, 
while  instinct  still  compelled  a  continuance  under 
water,  would  not  drowning  ensue  ? "  No  doubt.  But 
— simply  contemplating  the  facts,  instead  of  theoriz- 
ing— we  notice  that  young  frogs  do  not  keep  their 
heads  under  water  after  ceasing  to  be  tadpoles.  The 
instinct  promptly  changes  with  the  structure,  with- 
out supernatui'al  interposition — ^just  as  Darwin  would 
have  it,  if  the  development  of  a  variety  or  incipient 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  171 

species,  tliougli  rare,  were  as  natural  as  a  metamor- 
phosis. 

"  Or  if  a  quadruped,  not  yet  furnislied  witli  wings, 
were  suddenly  inspired  with  the  instinct  of  a  bird, 
and  precipitated  itself  from  a  cliff,  would  not  the  de- 
scent be  hazardously  rapid  ? "  Doubtless  the  animal 
would  be  no  better  supported  than  the  objection. 
But  Darwin  makes  very  little  indeed  of  voluntary  ef- 
forts as  a  cause  of  change,  and  even  poor  Lamarck 
need  not  be  caricatured.  He  never  supposed  that  an 
elephant  would  take  such  a  notion  into  his  wise  head, 
or  that  a  squirrel  would  begin  with  other  than  short 
and  easy  leaps ;  yet  might  not  the  length  of  the  leap 
be  increased  by  practice  ? 

The  North  American  reviewer's  position,  that 
the  higher  brute  animals  have  comparatively  little  in- 
stinct and  no  intelligence,  is  a  heavy  blow  and  great 
discouragement  to  dogs,  horses,  elephants,  and  mon- 
keys. Thus  stripped  of  their  all,  and  left  to  shift  for 
themselves  as  they  may  in  this  hard  world,  their 
pursuit  and  seeming  attainment  of  knowledge  under 
such  peculiar  difficulties  are  interesting  to  contemplate. 
However,  we  are  not  so  sure  as  is  the  critic  that  in- 
stinct regularly  increases  downward  and  decreases  up- 
ward in  the  scale  of  being.  Now  that  the  case  of  the 
bee  is  reduced  to  moderate  proportions,*  we  know  of 
nothing  in  instinct  surpassing  that  of  an  animal  so 
high  as  a  bird,  the  talegal,  the  male  of  which  plumes 
himself  upon  making  a  hot-bed  in  which  to  hatch  his 
partner's  eggs — which  he  tends  and  regulates  the  heat 

*  Vide  article  by  Mr.  0.  "Wright,  in  the  Mathematical  Monthly  for 
May  last. 


172  BARWrniANA. 

of  about  as  carefully  and  skilKiilly  as  the  unplumed 
biped  does  an  eccaleobion/ 

As  to  the  real  intelligence  of  the  higher  brutes,  it 
has  been  ably  defended  by  a  far  more  competent  ob- 
server, Mr.  Agassiz,  to  whose  conclusions  we  yield  a 
general  assent,  although  we  cannot  quite  place  the  best 
of  dogs  "  in  that  respect  upon  a  level  with  a  consider- 
able proportion  of  poor  humanity,"  nor  indulge  the 
hope,  or  indeed  the  desire,  of  a  renewed  acquaintance 
with  the  whole  animal  kingdom  in  a  future  life.^ 

The  assertion  that  acquired  habitudes  or  instincts, 
and  acquired  structures,  are  not  heritable,  any  breeder 
or  good  observer  can  refute.^ 

That  "the  human  mind  has  become  what  it  is  out 
of  a  developed  instinct,"*  is  a  statement  which  Mr, 
Darwin  nowhere  makes,  and,  we  presume,  would  not 
accept/     That  he  would  have  us  believe  that  individ- 

^  Vide  EdbiburgJi  Review  for  January,  1860,  article  on  "Acclima- 
tization," etc. 

^  "  Contributions,  Essay  on  Classification,"  etc.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  60-66. 

^  Still  stronger  assertions  have  recently  been  hazarded — even  that 
heritability  is  of  species  only,  not  of  individual  characteristics — 
strangely  overlooking  the  fundamental  peculiarity  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals, which  is  that  they  reproduce^  and  that  the  species  is  continued  as 
such  only  because  individuals  reproduce  their  Uke. 

•  •  •  •  •  •  «  •. 

It  has  also  been  urged  that  variation  is  never  cumulative.  If  this 
means  that  varieties  are  not  capable  of  further  variation,  it  is  not  borne 
out  by  observation.  For  cultivators  and  breeders  well  know  that  the 
main  difficulty  is  to  initiate  a  variation,  and  that  new  varieties  are  par- 
ticularly prone  to  vary  more. 

^  North  American  Review,  April,  1860,  p.  475. 

^  No  doubt  he  would  equally  distinguish  in  kind  between  iiistinct 
(which  physiologically  is  best  conceived  of  as  congenital  habit,  so  that 
habits  when  inherited  become  instincts,  just  as  varieties  become  fixed 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  173 

ual  animals  acquire  their  instincts  gradually/  is  a 
statement  wliicli  must  have  been  penned  in  inadver- 
tence both  of  the  very  definition  of  instinct,  and  of 
everything  we  know  of  in  Mr.  Darwin's  book. 

It  has  been  attempted  to  destroy  the  very  founda- 
tion of  Darwin's  hypothesis  by  denying  that  there  are 
any  wild  varieties,  to  speak  of,  for  natural  selection  to 
operate  upon.  We  cannot  gravely  sit  down  to  prove 
that  wild  varieties  abound.  We. should  think  it  just 
as  necessary  to  prove  that  snow  falls  in  winter.  That 
variation  among  plants  cannot  be  largely  due  to  hy- 

into  races)  and  intelligence ;  but  would  maintain  that  both  are  endow- 
ments of  the  higher  brutes  and  of  man,  however  vastly  and  unequal 
their  degree,  and  with  whatever  superaddition  to  simple  intelligence  in 
the  latter. 

[Prof.  Joseph  Le  Conte,  in  Popular  Science  Monthly,  September, 
1875,  refers  to  his  definition  of  instinct  as  "inherited  experience," 
pubUshed  in  April,  1811,  as  having  been  anticipated  by  that  of  Hering, 
as  "  inherited  memory,"  in  February  of  the  same  year.  .  Doubtless  the 
idea  has  been  expressed  by  others  long  before  us.] 

To  allow  that  "  brutes  have  certain  mental  endowments  in  common 
with  men,"  ....  desires,  affections,  memory,  simple  imagination  or 
the  power  of  reproducing  the  sensible  past  in  mental  pictures,  and  even 
judgment  of  the  simple  or  intuitive  kind" — that  "  they  compare  and 
judge"  ("Memoirs  of  American  Academy,"  vol.  viii.,  p.  118) — is  to 
concede  that  the  intellect  of  brutes  really  acts,  so  far  as  we  know,  like 
human  intellect,  as  far  it  goes ;  for  the  philosophical  logicians  tell  U3 
all  reasoning  is  reducible  to  a  series  of  simple  judgments.  And  Aris- 
totle declares  that  even  reminiscence — which  is,  we  suppose,  "  repro- 
ducing the  sensible  past  in  mental  pictures  " — is  a  sort  of  reasoning 
(rb  avafjufivfjaKcoOal  iffriv  otou  (TvKXoyia^6s  ris). 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Darwin's  expectation  that  "  psychology  will 
be  based  on  a  new  foundation,  that  of  the  necessary  acquirement  of  each 
mental  power  and  capacity  by  gradation,"  seems  to  come  from  a  school 
of  philosophy  with  which  we  have -no  sympathy. 

^American  Journal  of  Science^  July,  1860,  p.  146. 


174  DARWINIANA. 

bridism,  and  that  their  variation  in  ISTature  is  not  es- 
sentially different  from  mucli  that  occurs  in  domesti- 
cation, and,  in  the  long-run,  probably  hardly  less  in 
amount,  we  could  show  if  our  space  permitted. 

As  to  the  sterility  of  hybrids,  that  can  no  longer  be 
insisted  upon  as  absolutely  true,  nor  be  practically 
used  as  a  test  between  species  and  varieties,  unless  we 
allow  that  hares  and  rabbits  are  of  one  species.  That 
such  sterility,  whether  total  or  partial,  subserves  a  pur- 
pose in  keeping  species  apart,  and  was  so  designed,  we 
do  not  doubt.  But  the  critics  fail  to  perceive  that 
this  sterility  proves  nothing  whatever  against  the  de- 
rivative origin  of  the  actual  species ;  for  it  may  as 
well  have  been  intended  to  keep  separate  those  forms 
which  have  reached  a  certain  amount  of  divergence,  as 
those  which  were  alwavs  thus  distinct. 

The  argument  for  the  permanence  of  species,  drawn 
from  the  identity  with  those  now  living  of  cats,  birds, 
and  other  animals  preserved  in  Egyptian .  catacombs, 
was  good  enough  as  used  by  Cuvier  against  St.-Hi- 
laire,  that  is,  against  the  supposition  that  time  brings 
about  a  gradual  alteration  of  whole  species;  but  it 
goes  for  little  against  Darwin,  unless  it  be  proved  that 
species  never  vary,  or  that  the  perpetuation  of  a  vari- 
ety necessitates  -the  extinction  of  the  parent  breed. 
For  Darwin  clearly  maintains — what  the  facts  warrant 
—that  the  mass  .of  a  species  remains  fixed  so  long  as 
it  exists  at  all,  though  it  may  set  off  a  variety  now  and 
then.  The  variety  may  finally  supersede  the  parent 
form,  or  it  may  coexist  with  it ;  yet  it  does  not  in  the 
least  hinder  the  unvaried  stock  from  continuing  true 
to  the  breed,  unless  it  crosses  with  it.     The  common 


DARWIN  AND  'HIS  REVIEWERS.  175 

law  of  iiilieritance  may  be  expected  to  keep  both  the 
original  and  the  variety  mainly  true  as  long  as  they 
last,  and  none  the  less  so  because  they  have  given  rise 
to  occasional  varieties.  The  tailless  Manx  cats,  like  the 
curtailed  fox  in  the  fable,  have  not  induced  the  nor- 
mal breeds  to  dispense  with  their  tails,  nor  have  the 
Dorkings  (apparently  known  to  Pliny)  affected  the  per- 
manence of  the  common  sort  of  fowl. 

As  to  the  objection  that  the  lower  forms  of  life 
ought,  on  Darwin's  theory,  to  have  been  long  ago  im- 
proved out  of  existence,  and  replaced  by  higher  forms, 
the  objectors  forget  what  a  vacuum  that  would  leave 
below,  and  what  a  vast  field  there  is  to  which  a  simple 
organization  is  best  adapted,  and  where  an  advance 
would  be  no  improvement,  but  the  contrary.  To  accu- 
mulate the  greatest  amount  of  being  upon  a  given  space, 
and  to  provide'  as  much  enjoyment  of  life  as  can  be 
under  the  conditions,  is  what  l^ature  seems  to  aim  at ; 
and  this  is  effected  by  diversification. 

Finally,  we  advise  nobody  to  accept  Darwin's  or 
any  other  derivative  theory  as  true.  The  time  has  not 
come  for  that,  and  perhaps  never  will.  We  also  ad- 
\nse  against  a  simular  credulity  on  the  other  side,  in  a 
blind  faith  that  species — that  the  manifold  sorts  and 
forms  of  existing  animals  and  vegetables — "have  no 
secondary  cause."  The  contrary  is  already  not  unlike- 
ly, and  we- suppose  will  hereafter  become  more  and 
more  probable.  But  we  are  confident  that,  if  a  de- 
rivative h}rpothesis  ever  is  established,  it  will  be  so  on 
Si  solid  theistic  ground. 

Meanwhile  an  inevitable  and  legitimate  hypothesis 
is  on  trial — an  hypothesis  thus  far  not  imtenable — a 


176  DARWINIANA. 

trial  just  now  very  useful  to  science,  and,  we  conclude, 
not  harmful  to  religion,  unless  injudicious  assailants 
temporarily  make  it  so. 

One  good  effect  is  already  manifest ;  its  enabling 
the  advocates  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  multiplicity  of 
human  species  to  perceive  the  double  insecurity  of  their 
ground.  When  the  races  of  men  are  admitted  to  be  of 
one  species^  the  corollary,  that  they  are  of  one  origin, 
may  be  expected  to  follow.  Those  who  allow  them  to 
be  of  one  species  must  admit  an  actual  diversification 
into  strongly-marked  and  persistent  varieties,  and  so 
admit  the  basis  of  fact  upon  which  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis  is  built ;  while  those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  recognize  several  or  numerous  human  species,  will 
hardly  be  able  to  maintain  that  such  species  were  pri- 
mordial and  supernatural  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
the  word. 

The  English  mind  is  prone  to  positivism  and  kin- 
dred forms  of  materialistic  philosophy,  and  we  must 
expect  the  derivative  theory  to  be  taken  up  in  that  in- 
terest. "We  have  no  predilection  for  that  school,  but 
the  contrary.  If  we  had,  we  might  have  looked  com- 
placently upon  a  line  of  criticism  which  would  indi- 
rectly, but  effectively,  j)lay  into  the  hands  of  positivists 
and  materialistic  atheists  generally.  The  wiser  and 
stronger  ground  to  take  is,  that  the  derivative  hypothe- 
sis leaves  the  argument  for  design,  and  therefore  for  a 
designer,  as  valid  as  it  ever  was  ;  that  to  do  any  work 
by  an  instrument  must  require,  and  therefore  presup- 
pose, the  exertion  rather  of  more  than  of  less  power 
than  to  do  it  directly ;  that  whoever  would  be  a  con- 
sistent theist  should  believe  that  Design  in  the  natural 


DARWIN  AND  HIS  REVIEWERS.  177 

world  is  coextensive  with  Providence,  and  hold  as  firm- 
ly to  the  one  as  he  does  to  the  other,  in  spite  of  the 
wholly  similar  and  apparently  insuperable  difficulties 
which  the  mind  encounters  whenever  it  endeavors  to 
develop  the  idea  into  a  system,  either  in  the  material 
and  organic,  or  in  the  moral  world.  It  is  enough,  in 
the  way  of  obviating  objections,  to  show  that  the  phil- 
osophical difficulties  of  the  one  are  the  same,  and  only 
the  same,  as  of  the  other. 


ly. 


SPECIES   AS    TO   VAEIATION,  GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTEIBUTION, 

AOT)   SUCCESSION. 

(Amekican  Jotjenal  of  Scienck  akd  Aets,  May,  1863.) 

Etude  siir  VEsjpece^  a  V  Occasion  d'une  Eevision  de 
laFamille  des  Cuj^iiliferes^jpar  M.  Alphonse  De  Can- 
DOLLE. — This  is  tlie  title  of  a  paper  by  M.  Alj)]i. 
De  Candolle,  gTowing  out  of  his  study  of  the  oaks.  It 
was  published  in  the  E^ovember  number  of  the  Bih- 
liotheque  TJniverselle^  and  separately  issued  as  a  pam- 
phlet. A  less  inspiring  task  could  hardly  be  assigned 
to  a  botanist  than  the  systematic  elaboration  of  the 
genus  Qiiercus  and  its  allies.  The  vast  materials  as- 
sembled under  De  Candolle' s  hands,  while  disheart- 
ening for  their  bulk,  offered  small  hope  of  novelty. 
The  subject  was  both  extremely  trite  and  extremely 
difficult.  Happily  it  occurred  to  De  Candolle  that  an 
interest  might  be  imparted  to  an  onerous  undertaking, 
and  a  w^ork  of  necessity  be  turned  to  good  account  for 
science,  by  studying  the  oaks  in  view  of  the  question 
of  species. 

What  this  term  sjyecies  means,  or  should  mean,  in 
natural  history,  what  the  limits  of  species,  inter  se  or 
chronologically,  or  in  geographical  distribution,  their 
modifications,  actual   or  probable,  their  origin,  and 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION,   ETC.         170 

tlieir  destiny  —  these  are  questions  wliicli  surge  up 
from  time  to  time ;  and  now  and  tlien  in  the  progress 
of  science  they  come  to  assmne  a  new  and  hopeful  in- 
terest. Botany  and  zoology,  geology,  and  what  our 
author,  feeling  the  want  of  a  new  term,  proposes  to 
name  ejpiontology ^  all  lead  up  to  and  converge  into 
this  class  of  questions,  while  recent  theories  shape  and 
point  the  discussion.  So  we  look  with  eager  interest 
to  see  what  light  the  study  of  oaks  by  a  very  careful, 
experienced,  and  conservative  botanist,  particularly 
conversant  with  the  geographical  relations  of  plants, 
may  throw  upon  the  subject. 

The  course  of  investigation  in  this  instance  does 
not  differ  from  that  ordinarily  pursued  by  working 
botanists ;  nor,  indeed,  are  the  theoretical  conclusions 
other  than  those  to  which  a  similar  study,  of  other  or- 
ders might  not  have  equally  led.  The  oaks  afford  a 
very  good  occasion  for  the  discussion  of  questions 
which  press  upon  our  attention,  and  perhaps  they  offer 
peculiarly  good  materials  on  account  of  the  number 
of  fossil  species. 

Preconceived  notions  about  species  being  laid 
aside,  the  specimens  in  hand  were  distributed,  accord- 

^  A  name  which,  at  the  close  of  his  article,  De  Candolle  proposes  for 
the  study  of  the  succession  of  organized  beings,  to  comprehend,  therefore, 
palaeontology  and  all  included  under  what  is  called  geographical  botany 
and  zoology — the  whole  forming  a  science  parallel  to  geology — the  lat- 
ter devoted  to  the  history  of  unorganized  bodies,  the  former,  to  that  of 
organized  beings,  as  respects  origin,  distribution,  and  succession.  We 
are  not  satisfied  with  the  word,  notwithstanding  the  precedent  of  pahv- 
ontology  ;  since  ontology ,  the  science  of  being,  has  an  established  mean- 
mg  as  referring  to  mental  existence — i.  e.,  is  a  synonym  or  a  department 
of  metaphysics. 


180  DARWINIANA. 

ing  to  their  obvious  resemblanceSj  into  groups  of  ap- 
parently identical  or  nearly  identical  forms,  wliich 
were  severally  examined  and  compared.  Where  speci- 
mens were  few,  as  from  countries  httle  explored,  the 
work  was  easy,  but  the  conclusions,  as  will  be  seen,  of 
small  value.  The  fewer  the  materials,  the  smaller  the 
likelihood  of  forms  intermediate  between  any  two, 
and — what  does  not  appear  being  treated  upon  the  old 
law-maxim  as  non-existent — species  are  readily  enough 
defined.  Where,  however,  specimens  abound,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  oaks  of  Europe,  of  the  Orient,  and  of 
the  United  States,  of  which  the  specimens  amounted 
to  hundreds,  collected  at  different  ages,  in  varied  local- 
ities, by  botanists  of  all  sorts  of  views  and  predilec- 
tions— here  alone  were  data  fit  to  draw  useful  conclu- 
sions from.  Here,  as  De  Candolle  remarks,  he  had 
every  advantage,  being  furnished  with  materials  more 
complete  than  any  one  person  could  have  procm*ed 
from  his  own  herborizations,  more  varied  than  if  he 
had  observed  a  hundred  times  over  the  same  forms  in 
the  same  district,  and  more  impartial  than  if  they  had 
all  been  amassed  by  one  person  with  his  own  ideas  or 
predispositions.  So  that  vast  herbaria,  into  which  con- 
tributions from  every  source  have  flowed  for  years, 
furnish  the  best  possible  data — at  least  are  far  better 
than  any  practicable  amount  of  personal  herborization 
— for  the  comparative  study  of  related  forms  occur- 
ring over  wide  tracts  of  temtory.  But  as  the  materials 
increase,  so  do  the  difficulties.  Forms,  which  appeared 
totally  distinct,  approach  or  blend  through  interme- 
diate gradations ;  characters,  stable  in  a  limited  num- 
ber of  instances  or  in  a  limited  district,  prove  unstable 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION,   ETC.         181 

occasionally,  or  when  observed  over  a  wider  area ;  and 
the  practical  question  is  forced  upon  the  investigator, 
What  here  is  probably  fixed  and  specific,  and  what  is 
variant,  pertaining  to  individual,  variety,  or  race  ? 

In  the  examination  of  these  rich  materials,  certain 
characters  were  found  to  vary  upon  the  same  branch, 
or  upon  the  same  tree,  sometimes  according  to  age  or 
development,  sometimes  irrespective  of  such  relations 
or  of  any  assignable  reasons.  Such  characters,  of 
course,  are  not  specific,  although  many  of  them  are 
such  as  would  have  been  expected  to  be  constant  in 
the  same  species,  and  are  such  as  generally  enter  into 
specific  definitions.  Yariations  of  this  sort,  De  Can- 
dolle,  with  his  usual  j^ain staking,  classifies  and  tabu- 
lates, and  even  expresses  numerically  their  frequency 
in  certain  species.  The  results  are  brought  well  to 
view  in  a  systematic  enumeration  : 

1.  Of  characters  which  frequently  ^'ary  upon  the 
same  branch :  over  a  dozen  such  are  mentioned. 

2.  Of  those  which  sometimes  vary  upon  the  same 
branch :  a  smaller  number  of  these  are  mentioned. 

3.  Those  so  rare  that  they  might  be  called  mon- 
strosities. 

Then  he  enumerates  characters,  ten  in  number, 
which  he  has  never  found  to  vary  on  the  same  branch, 
and  which,  therefore,  may  better  claim  to  be  employed 
as  specific.  But,  as  among  them  he  includes  the  dura- 
tion of  the  leaves,  the  size  of  the  cupule,  and  the  form 
and  size  of  its  scales,  which  are  by  no  means  quite  uni- 
form in  different  trees  of  the  same  species,  even  these 
characters  must  be  taken  with  allowance.  In  fact,  hav- 
ing first  brought  together,  as  groups  of  the  lowest 


182  DARWINIANA. 

order,  tliose  forms  which  varied  upon  the  same  stock, 
he  next  had  to  combine  similarly  various  forms  which, 
though  not  found  associated  upon  the  same  branch, 
were  thoroughly  blended  by  intermediate  degTees ; 

"The  lower  groups  (varieties  or  races)  "being  thus  consti- 
tuted, I  have  given  the  rank  of  species  to  the  groups  next  above 
these,  whicli  differ  in  other  respects,  i.  e.,  either  in  characters 
which  were  not  found  united  upon  certain  individuals,  or  in 
those  which  do  not  show  transitions  from  one  individual  to  an- 
other. For  the  oaks  of  regions  sufficientlj  known,  the  species 
thus  formed  rest  upon  satisfactory  bases,  of  which  the  proof  can 
be  furnished.  It  is  quite  otherwise  with  those  which  are  repre- 
sented in  our  herbaria  by  single  or  few  specimens.  These  are 
provisional  species — species  which  may  hereafter  fall  to  the  rank 
of  simple  varieties.  I  have  not  been  inclined  to  prejudge  such 
questions ;  indeed,  in  this  regard,  I  am  not  disposed  to  follow 
those  authors  whose  tendency  is,  as  they  say,  to  reunite  species. 
I  never  reunite  them  without  proof  in  each  particular  case ; 
while  the  botanists  to  whom  I  refer  do  so  on  the  ground  of 
analogous  variations  or  transitions  occurring  in  the  same  genus 
or  in  the  same  family.  For  example  resting  on  the  fact  that 
Querciis  Ilex^  Q.  coccifera^  Q.  acutifolia^  etc.,  have  the  leaves 
sometimes  entire  and  sometimes  toothed  upon  the  same  branch, 
or  present  transitions  from  one  tree  to  another,  I  might  readily 
have  united  my  Q.  Tlapuxahuensis  to  Q.  Sartorii  of  Liebmann, 
since  these  two  differ  only  in  their  entire  or  their  toothed  leaves. 
From  the  fact  that  the  length  of  the  peduncle  varies  in  Q.  Ro- 
"bur  and  many  other  oaks,  I  might  have  combined  Q.  Seemannii 
Liebm.  with  Q.  salicifolia  ISTee.  I  have  not  admitted  these  in- 
ductions, but  have  demanded  visible  proof  in  each  particular 
case.  Many  species  are  thus  left  as  provisional ;  but,  in  proceed- 
ing thus,  the  progress  of  the  science  will  be  more  regular,  and 
the  synonymy  less  dependent  upon  the  caprice  or  the  theoretical 
opinions  of  each  author." 

This  is  safe  and  to  a  certain  degree  judicious,  no 
doubt,  as  respects  published  species.     Once  admitted, 


SPECIES  AS  TO    variation;  ETC.         183 

they  may  stand  nntll  they  are  put  down  by  evidence, 
direct  or  circumstantial.  Doubtless  a  species  may 
rightfully  be  condemned  on  good  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. But  vrhat  course  does  De  Candolle  pursue  in 
the  case — of  every-day  occmTence  to  most  working 
botanists,  having  to  elaborate  collections  from  coun- 
tries not  so  well  explored  as  Hurope — when  the  forms 
in  question,  or  one  of  the  two,  are  as  yet  unnamed  ? 
Does  he  introduce  as  a  new  species  every  form  which 
he  cannot  connect  by  ocular  proof  with  a  near  relative, 
from  Vvhich  it  differs  only  in  particulars  which  he  sees 
are  inconstant  in  better  known  species  of  the  same 
group  ?  We  suppose  not.  But,  if  he  does,  little  im- 
provement for  the  future  upon  the  state  of  things 
revealed  in  the  following  quotation  can  be  expected  : 

"In  the  actual  state  of  our  knowledge,  after  having  seen 
nearly  all  the  original  specimens,  and  in  some  species  as  many 
as  two  hundred  representatives  from  different  localities,  I  esti- 
mate that,  out  of  the  three  hundred  species  of  CupulifercB 
which  will  be  enumerated  in  the  Prodromus,  two-thirds  at  least 
are  provisional  species.  In  general,  when  we  consider  what  a 
multitude  of  species  were  described  from  a  single  specimen,  or 
from  the  forms  of  a  single  locality,  of  a  single  country,  or  are 
badly  described,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  above  one-third  of 
the  actual  species  in  botanical  works  will  remain  unchanged." 

Such  being  the  results  of  the  want  of  adequate 
knowledge,  how  is  it  likely  to  be  when  our  knowledge 
is  largely  increased  ?  The  judgment  of  so  practised  a 
botanist  as  De  Candolle  is  important  in  this  regard, 
and  it  accords  w^ith  that  of  other  botanists  of  equal 
experience. 

"  They  are  mistaken,"  he  pointedly  asserts,  "  who 
repeat  that  the  greater  part  of  our  species  are  clearly 


1 8-i  DAR  WINIANA. 

limited,  and  that  the  doubtful  species  are  iii  a  feeble 
minority.  This  seemed  to  be  true,  so  long  as  a  genus 
was  imperfectly  known,  and  its  species  were  founded 
upon  few  sj)ecimens,  that  is  to  say,  were  provisional. 
Just  as  we  come  to  know  them  better,  intermediate 
forms  flow  in,  and  doubts  as  to  specific  limits  aug- 
ment." 

De  Candolle  insists,  indeed,  in  this  connection,  that 
the  higher  the  rank  of  the  groups,  the  more  definite 
their  limitation,  or,  in  other  terms,  the  fewer  the  am- 
biguous or  doubtful  forms;  that  genera  are  more 
strictly  limited  than  species,  tribes  than  genera,  orders 
than  tribes,  etc.  We  are  not  convinced  of  this.  Often 
where  it  has  appeared  to* be  so,  advancing  discovery 
has  brc>ught  intermediate  forms  to  light,  perplexing  to 
the  systematist.  "  They  are  mistaken,"  we  think  more 
than  one  systematic  botanist  will  say,"  who  repeat  that 
the  greater  part  of  our  natural  orders  and  tribes  are 
absolutely  limited,"  however  we  may  agree  that  we 
will  limit  them.  Provisional  genera  we  suppose  are 
proportionally  hardly  less  common  than  provisional 
species;  and  hundreds  of  genera  are  kept  up  on  con- 
siderations of  general  propriety  or  general  conven- 
ience, although  well  known  to  shade  off  into  adjacent 
ones  by  complete  gradations.  Somewhat  of  this  greater 
fixity  of  higher  groups,  therefore,  is  rather  apparent 
than  real.  On  the  other  hand,  that  varieties  should 
be  less  definite  than  species,  follows  from  the  very 
terms  employed.  They  are  ranked  as  varieties,  rather 
than  species,  just  because  of  their  less  definiteness. 

Singular  as  it  may  appear,  we  have  heard  it  denied 
that  spontaneous  varieties  occur.     De  Candolle  makes 


SPECIES  AS  TO    YARIATIOX,   ETC.         185 

the  important  announcement  tliat,  in  tlie  oak  genus, 
the  best  known  species  are  just  those  which  present  the 
greatest  number  of  spontaneous  varieties  and  sub-vari- 
eties. The  maximum  is  found  in  Q.  Hobiir,  with 
twenty-eight  varieties,  all  spontaneous.  Of  Q.  Lusi- 
tanica  eleven  varieties  are  enumerated,  of  Q.  Calli- 
prinos  ten,  of  Q.  coccifera  eight,  etc.  And  he  sig- 
nificantly adds  that  "these  very  species  which  offer 
such  numerous  modifications  are  themselves  ordinarily 
surrounded  by  other  forms,  provisionally  called  spe- 
cies, because  of  the  absence  of  known  transitions  or 
variations,  but  to  which  some  of  these  will  probably 
have  to  be  joined  hereafter.  "  The  inference  is  natu- 
ral, if  not  inevitable,  that  the  difference  between  such 
species  and  such  varieties  is  only  one  of  degree,  either 
as  to  amount  of  divergence,  or  of  hereditary  fixity,  or 
as  to  the  frequency  or  rarity  at  the  present  time  of 
intermediate  forms. 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  section  of  De  Can- 
dolle's  article,  in  which  he  passes  on,  from  the  obser- 
vation of  the  present  forms  and  affinities  of  cupulifer- 
ous  plants,  to  the  consideration  of  their  probable  his- 
tory and  origin.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  he  frankly  ac- 
cepts the  inferences  derived  from  the  whole  course 
of  observation,  and  contemplates  a  probable  historical 
connection  between  congeneric  species.  He  accepts 
and,  by  various  considerations  drawn  from  the  geo- 
graphical distribution  of  European  Ciipuliferce^  forti- 
fies the  conclusion — long  ago  arrived  at  by  Edward 
Forbes — that  the  present  species,  and  even  some  of 
their  varieties,  date  back  to  about  the  close  of  the  Ter- 
tiary epoch,  since  which  time  they  have  been  subject 


186  DARWINIANA. 

to  frequent  and  great  changes  of  habitation  or  limita- 
tion, but  without  appreciable  change  of  specific  form 
or  character  ;  that  is,  without  prof  ounder  changes  than 
those  within  which  a  species  at  the  present  time  is 
kno^vn  to  vary.  Moreover,  he  is  careful  to  state  that 
he  is  far  from  concluding  that  the  time  of  the  appear- 
ance of  a  species  in  Em-ope  at  all  indicates  the  time  of 
its  origin.  Looking  back  still  further  into  the  Tertiary 
epoch,  of  which  the  vegetable  remains  indicate  many 
analogous,  but  few,  if  any,  identical  forms,  he  con- 
cludes, with  Heer  and  others,  that  specific  changes  of 
form,  as  well  as  changes  of  station,  are  to  be  presumed  ; 
and,  finally,  that  "  the  theory  of  a  succession  of  forms 
through  the  deviation  of  anterior  forms  is  the  most 
natural  hypothesis,  and  the  most  accordant  with  the 
known  facts  in  palaeontology,  geographical  botany  and 
zoology,  of  anatomical  structure  and  classification: 
but  dhect  proof  of  it  is  wanting,  and  moreover,  it 
true,  it  must  have  taken  place  very  slowly  ;  so  slowly, 
indeed,  that  its  effects  are  discernible  only  after  a  lapse 
of  time  far  longer  than  our  historic  epoch. " 

In  contemplating  the  present  state  of  the  species 
of  CupulifercB  in  Europe,  De  Candolle  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that,  while  the  beech  is  increasing,  and  ex- 
tending its  limits  southward  and  westward  (at  the  ex- 
pense of  ConifercB  and  birches),  the  common  oak,  to 
some  extent,  and  the  Turkey  oak  decidedly,  are  di- 
minishing and  retreating,  and  this  wholly  irrespective 
of  man's  agency.  This  is  inferred  of  the  Turkey  oak 
from  the  great  gaps  found  in  its  present  geographical 
area,  which  are  otherwise  inexplicable,  and  which  he 
regards  as  plain  indications  of  a  partial   extinction. 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION,   ETC.         187 

Community  of  descent  of  all  the  individuals  of  species 
is  of  course  implied  in  these  and  all  similar  reasonings. 
An  obvious  result  of  such  partial  extinction  is 
clearly  enough  brought  to  view.  The  European  oaks 
(like  the  American  species)  greatly  tend  to  vary ; 
that  is,  they  manifest  an  active  disposition  to  produce 
new  forms.  Every  form  tends  to  become  hereditary, 
and  so  to  pass  from  the  state  of  mere  variation  to  that 
of  race ;  and  of  these  competing  incipient  races  some 
only  will  survive.  Querciis  Hohur  offers  a  familiar 
illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  one  form  may  in 
the  course  of  time  become  separated  into  two  or  more 
distinct  ones. 
■  To  Linnaeus  this  common  oak  of  Europe  was  all  of 
one  species.  But  of  late  years  the  greater  number 
of  European  botanists  have  regarded  it  as  including 
three  species,  Q.  jpedunculata,  Q.  sessiliflora^  and  Q. 
jpiihescens,  De  Candolle  looks  with  satisfaction  to  the 
independent  conclusion  which  he  reached  from  a  long 
and  patient  study  of  the  forms  (and  which  Webb,  Gay, 
Bentham,  and  others,  had  equally  reached),  that  the 
view  of  Linnseus  was  correct,  inasmuch  as  it  goes  to 
show  that  the  idea  and  the  practical  application  of  the 
term  speciesh.2iYe,  remained  unchanged  during  the  cen- 
tury which  has  elapsed  since  the  publication  of  the  "  Spe- 
cies Plantarum. "  But,  the  idea  remaining  unchanged, 
the  facts  might  appear  under  a  different  aspect,  and  the 
conclusion  be  different,  under  a  slight  and  very  sup- 
posable  change  of  circumstances.  Of  the  twenty-eight 
spontaneous  varieties  of  Q.  Robur,  which  De  Candolle 
recognizes,  all  but  six,  he  remarks,  fall  naturally  under 
the  three  sub-species,  peduncidata^  sessiliflora^  and 


188  DARWINIANA. 

pubescens,  and  are  tlierefore  forms  grouped  aroiind 
these  as  centres ;  and,  moreover,  the  few  connecting 
forms  are  by  no  means  the  most  common.  Were? 
these  to  die  out,  it  is  clear  that  the  three  forms  which 
have  already  been  so  frequently  taken  for  species 
would  be  what  the  group  of  four  or  five  provisionally 
admitted  species  which  closely  surround  Q.  JRobur 
now  are.  The  best  example  of  such  a  case,  as  having 
in  all  probability  occurred  through  geographical  segre- 
gation and  partial  extinction,  is  that  of  the  cedar,  thus 
separated  into  the  Deodar,  the  Lebanon,  and  the  At- 
lantic cedars — a  case  admirably  worked  out  by  Dr. 
Hooker  two  or  three  years  ago.^ 

A  special  advantage  of  tlie  GiqyuUferoe  for  deter- 
mining the  probable  antiquity  of  existing  species  in 
Europe,  De  Candolle  finds  in  the  size  and  character  of 
their  fruits.  However  it  may  be  with  other  plants 
(and  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  generally  that  marine 
currents  and  all  other  means  of  distant  transport  have 
played  only  a  very  small  part  in  the  actual  dispersion 
of  species),  the  transport  of  acorns  and  chestnuts  by 
natural  causes  across  an  arm  of  the  sea  in  a  condition 
to  germinate,  and  much  more  the  spontaneous  estab- 
lishment of  a  forest  of  oaks  or  chestnuts  in  this  way, 
De  Candolle  conceives  to  be  fairly  impossible  in  itself, 
and  contrary  to  all  experience.  From  such  considera- 
tions, i.  e.,  from  the  actual  dispersion  of  the  existing 
species  (with  occasional  aid  from  post-tertiary  deposits), 
it  is  thought  to  be  shown  that  the  principal  Cupuli- 
fercB  of  the  Old  World  attained  their  actual  extension 

'  Natural  History  Rcvieii\  January,  18G2. 


SPECIES  AS  TO   VAEIATIOK,  ETC.         189 

before  the  present  separation  of  Sicily,  Sardinia  and 
Corsica,  and  of  Britain,  from  the  European  Continent. 

This  view  once  adopted,  and  this  course  once 
entered  upon,  has  to  be  pursued  farther.  Quercus 
HobuT  of  Europe  with  its  bevy  of  admitted  deriva- 
tives, and  its  attending  species  only  provisionally  ad- 
mitted to  that  rank,  is  very  closely  related  to  certain 
species  of  Eastern  Asia,  and  of  Oregon  and  California 
— so  closely  that  "  a  view  of  the  specimens  by  no 
means  forbids  the  idea  that  they  have  all  originated 
from  Q.  Robur^  or  have  originated,  with  the  latter, 
from  one  or  more  preceding  forms  so  like  the  present 
ones  that  a  naturalist  could  hardly  know  whether  to 
call  them  species  or  varieties."  Moreover,  there  are 
fossil  leaves  from  diluvian  deposits  in  Italy,  figured  by 
Gaudin,  which  are  hardly  distinguishable  from  those 
of  Q.  JRobur  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  those  of  Q. 
Douglasii^  etc.,  of  California,  on  the  other.  Xo  such 
leaves  are  found  in  any  tertiary  deposit  in  Europe; 
but  such  are  found  of  that  age,  it  appears,  in  North- 
west America,  where  their  remote  descendants  still 
flourish.  So  that  the  probable  genealogy  of  Q.  Bobitr, 
traceable  in  Europe  up  to  the  commencement  of  the 
present  epoch,  looks  eastward  and  far  into  the  past  on 
far-distant  shores. 

Quercus  llex^  the  evergreen  oak  of  Southern  Europe 
and  Northern  Africa,  reveals  a  similar  archaeoloo'v ; 
but  its  presence  in  Algeria  leads  De  CandoUe  to  regard 
it  as  a  much  more  ancient  denizen  of  Europe  than  Q, 
Bobur  ;  and  a  Tertiary  oak,  Q.  ilicoides,  from  a  very 
old  Miocene  bed  in  Switzerland,  is  thought  to  be  one 
of  its  ancestral  forms.  This  high  antiquity  once 
9 


190  DARWmiANA. 

establislied,  it  follows  almost  of  course  that  tlie  very 
nearly-related  species  in  Central  Asia,  in  Japan,  in 
California,  and  even  our  own  live-oak  with  its  Mexican 
relatives,  may  probably  enough  be  regarded  as  early 
offshoots  from  the  same  stock  with  Q.  Ilex. 

In  brief — not  to  continue  these  abstracts  and  re- 
marks, and  without  reference  to  Darwin's  particular 
theory  (which  De  Candolle  at  the  close  very  fairly  con- 
siders)— if  existing  species,  or  many  of  them,  are  as 
ancient  as  they  are  now  generally  thought  to  be,  and 
were  subject  to  the  physical  and  geographical  changes 
(among  them  the  coming  and  the  going  of  the  glacial 
epoch)  which  this  antiquity  implies ;  if  in  former 
times  they  were  as  liable  to  variation  as  they  now  are  ; 
and  if  the  individuals  of  the  same  species  may  claim  a 
common  local  origin,  then  we  cannot  wonder  that  "  the 
theory  of  a  succession  of  forms  by  deviations  of  ante- 
rior forms  "  should  be  regarded  as  "  the  most  natural 
hypothesis,"  nor  at  the  general  advance  made  toward 
its  acceptance. 

The  question  being,  not,  how  plants  and  animals 
originated,  but,  how  came  the  existing  animals  and 
plants  to  be  just  where  they  are  and  what  they  are, 
it  is  plain  that  naturalists  interested  in  such  inquiries 
are  mostly  looking  for  the  answer  in  one  direction. 
The  general  drift  of  opinion,  or  at  least  of  expectation, 
is  exemplified  by  this  essay  of  De  Candolle ;  and  the 
set  and  force  of  the  current  are  seen  by  noticing  how 
it  carries  along  naturalists  of  widely  different  views 
and  prepossessions — some  faster  and  farther  than  oth- 
ers— but  all  in  one  way.  The  tendency  is,  we  may  say, 
to  extend  the  law  of  continuity,  or  something  analo- 


SPECIES  AS  TO    variation;   ETC'.         191 

goiis  to  it,  from  inorganic  to  organic  Xature,  and  in 
the  latter  to  connect  the  present  with  the  past  in  some 
sort  of  material  connection.  The  generahzation  may 
indeed  be  expressed  so  as  not  to  assert  that  the  con- 
nection is  genetic,  as  in  Mr.  Wallace's  formula  :  "  Ev- 
ery species  has  come  into  existence  coincident  both  in 
time  and  space  with  preexisting  closely-allied  species." 
Edward  Forbes,  who  may  be  called  the  originator  of 
this  w^hole  line  of  inquiry,  long  ago  expressed  a  simi- 
lar view.  But  the  only  material  sequence  we  know, 
or  can  clearly  conceive,  in  plants  and  animals,  is  that 
from  parent  to  progeny  ;  and,  as  De  Candolle  implies, 
the  origin  of  species  and  that  of  races  can  hardly  be 
much  unlike,  nor  governed  by  other  than  the  same 
laws,  whatever  these  may  be. . 

The  progress  of  opinion  npon  this  subject  in  one 
generation  is  not  badly  represented  by  that  of  De  Can- 
dolle himself,  who  is  by  no  means  prone  to  adopt  new 
views  without  much  consideration.  In  an  elementary 
treatise  published  in  the  year  1835,  he  adopted  and,  if 
we  rightly  remember,  vigorously  maintained,  Schouw's 
idea  of  the  double  or  multiple  origin  of  species,  at 
least  of  some  species — a  \dew  which  has  been  carried 
out  to  its  ultimate  development  only  perhaps  by  Agas- 
siz,  in  the  denial  of  any  necessary  genetic  connection 
among  the  indi\dduals  of  the  same  species,  or  of  any 
original  localization  more  restricted  than  the  area  now 
occupied  by  the  species.  But  in  1855,  in  his  "  Geogra- 
phic Botanique,"  the  multiple  hjqDothesis,  although  in 
principle  not  abandoned,  loses  its  point,  in  view  of  the 
probable  high  antiquity  of  existing  species.  The  act- 
ual vegetation  of  the  world  being  now  regarded  as  a 


192  BARWimANA. 

continuation,  through  numerous  geological,  geograplii- 
cal,  and  more  recently  historical  changes,  of  anterior 
vegetations,  the  actual  distribution  of  plants  is  seen  to 
be  a  consequence  of  preceding  conditions  ;  and  geologi- 
cal considerations,  and  these  alone,  may  be  expected 
to  explain  all  the  facts — many  of  them  so  curious  and 
extraordinary — of  the  actual  geographical  distribution 
of  the  species.  In  the  present  essay,  not'  only  the  dis- 
tribution but  the  origin  of  congeneric  species  is  re- 
garded as  something  derivative ;  whether  derived  by 
slow  and  very  gradual  changes  in  the  course  of  ages, 
according  to  Darwin,  or  by  a  sudden,  inexplicable 
change  of  their  tertiary  ancestors,  as  conceived  by 
Heer,  De  CandoUe  hazards  no  opinion.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  inferred  that  he  looks  upon  "  natural  selection  " 
as  a  real,  but  insufficient  cause ;  while  some  curious 
remarks  upon  the  number  of  monstrosities  annually 
produced,  and  the  possibility  of  their  enduring,  may 
be  regarded  as  favorable  to  Heer's  view. 

As  an  index  to  the  progress  of  opinion  in?  the  di- 
rection referred  to,  it  will  be  interesting  to  compare 
Sir  Charles  Ly ell's  well-known  chapters  of  twenty  or 
thirty  years  -  ago,  in  which  the  permanence  of  species 
was  ably  maintained,  with  his  treatment  of  the  same 
subject  in  a  work  just  issued  in  England,  which,  how- 
ever, has  not  yet  reached  us, 

A  belief  of  the  derivation  of  species  may  be  main- 
tained along  with  a  conviction  of  great  persistence  of 
specific  characters.  This  is  the  idea  of  the  excellent 
Swiss  vegetable  palseontologist,  Heer,  who  imagines 
a  sudden  change  of  specific  type  at  certain  periods, 
and  perhaps  is  that  of  Pictet.     Falconer  adheres  to 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION-,   ETC.         I93 

somewliat  similar  views  in  his  elaborate  paper  on 
elephants,  living  and  fossil,  in  the  Natural  Jlistory 
Review  for  January  last.  JSToting  that  "  there  is  clear 
evidence  of  the  true  mammoth  having  existed  in 
America  long  after  the  period  of  the  northern  drift, 
when  the  surface  of  the  country  had  settled  down 
into  its  present  foi*m,  and  also  in  Europe  so  late  as  to 
have  been  a  contemporary  of  the  Irish  elk,  and  on  the 
other  hand  that  it  existed  in  England  so  far  back  as 
before  the  deposition  of  the  bowlder  clay ;  also  that  four 
well-defined  species  of  fossil  elephant  are  known  to 
have  existed  in  Europe  ;  that  "  a  vast  number  of  the 
remains  of  three  of  these  species  have  been  exhumed 
over  a  large  area  in  Europe ;  and,  even  in  the  geo- 
logical sense,  an  enormous  interval  of  time  has  elapsed 
between  the  formation  of  the  most  ancient  and  the 
most  recent  of  these  deposits,  quite  sufficient  to  test 
the  persistence  of  specific  characters  in  an  elephant," 
he  presents  the  question,  "  Do,  then,  the  successive 
elephants  occurring  in  these  strata  show  any  signs 
of  a  passage  from  the  older  form  into  the  newer  ?  " 

To  which  the  reply  is ;  "  If  there  is  one  fact  which 
is  impressed  on  the  conviction  of  the  observer  with 
more  force  than  any  other,  it  is  the  persistence  and 
uniformity  of  the  characters  of  the  molar  teeth  in  the 
earliest  known  mammoth  and  his  most  modern  suc- 
cessor. .  .  .  Assuming  the  observation  to  be  correct, 
what  strong  proof  does  it  not  aiford  of  the  persistence 
and  constancy,  throughout  vast  intervals  of  time,  of 
the  distinctive  characters  of  those  organs  which  are 
most  concerned  in  the  existence  and  habits  of  the 
species  ?     If  we  cast  a  glance  back  on  the  long  vista 


1 9i  DAR  WimANA. 

of  physical  changes  which,  our  j)lanet  has  undergone 
since  the  IvTeozoic  epoch,  we  can  nowhere  detect  signs 
of  a  revolution  more  sudden  and  pronounced,  or  more 
important  in  its  results,  than  the  intercalation  and 
sudden  disappearance  of  the  glacial  period.  Yet  the 
^dicjclotherian'  mammoth  lived  before  it,  and  passed 
through  the  ordeal  of  all  the  hard  extremities  it  in- 
volved, bearing  his  organs  of  locomotion  and  digestion 
all  but  unchanged.  Taking  the  group  of  four  Em'o- 
pean  fossil  species  above  enumerated,  do  thej  show 
any  signs  in  the  successive  deposits  of  a  transition 
from  the  one  form  into  the  other  ?  Here  again  the 
result  of  my  observation,  in  so  far  as  it  has  extended 
over  the  European  area,  is,  that  the  specific  characters 
of  the  molars  are  constant  in  each,  within  a  moderate 
range  of  variation,  and  that  we  nowhere  meet  with 
intermediate  forms."  ....  Dr.  Falconer  continues 
(page  80) : 

"  The  inferences  whicTi  I  draw  from  these  facts  are  not 
opposed  to  one  of  the  leading  propositions  of  Darwin's  theory. 
With  him,  I  have  no  faith  in  the  opinion  that  the  mammoth 
and  other  extinct  elephants  made  their  appearance  suddenly, 
after  the  type  in  which  their  fossil  remains  are  presented  to  us. 
The  most  rational  view  seems  to  be,  that  they  are  in  some  shape 
the  modified  descendants  of  earlier  progenitors.  But  if  the 
asserted  facts  be  correct,  they  seem  clearly  to  indicate  that  the 
older  elephants  of  Europe,  such  as  E.  meridionalis  and  E.  anti- 
quus,  were  not  the  stocks  from  which  the  later  species,  E.  primi- 
genius  and  E.  Africanus  sprung,  and  that  we  must  look  else- 
where for  their  origin.  The  nearest  affinity,  and  that  a  very 
close  one,  of  the  European  E.  meridionalis  is  with  the  Miocene 
E.  planifrons  of  India ;  and  of  E.  primigenius^  with  the  exist- 
ing India  species. 

"Another  reflection  is  equally  strong  in  my  mind — that  the 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATIOX,   ETC.         105 

means  wliich  have  been  adduced  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
species  by  'natural  selection,'  or  a  process  of  variation  from 
external  influences,  are  inadequate  to  account  for  the  phenom- 
ena. The  law  of  phyllotaxis,  which  governs  the  evolution  of 
leaves  around  the  axis  of  a  plant,  is  as  nearly  constant  in  its 
manifestation  as  any  of  the  physical  laws  connected  with  the 
material  world.  Each  instance,  however  ditferent  from  an- 
other, can  be  shown  to  be  a  term  of  some  series  of  continued 
fractions.  When  this  is  coupled  with  the  geometrical  law  gov- 
erning the  evolution  of  form,  so  manifest  in  some  departments 
of  the  animal  kingdom,  e.  g.,  the  spiral  shells  of  the  Mollusca, 
it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  there  is  not,  in  Nature,  a  deeper- 
seated  and  innate  principle,  to  the  operation  of  which  natural 
selection  is  merely  an  adjunct.  The  whole  range  of  the  Mam- 
malia, fossil  and  recent,  cannot  furnish  a  species  which  has  had 
a  wider  geographical  distribution,  and  passed  through  a  longer 
term  of  time,  and  through  more  extreme  changes  of  climatal 
conditions,  than  the  mammoth.  If  species  are  so  unstable,  and 
so  susceptible  of  mutation  through  such  influences,  why  does 
that  extinct  form  stand  out  so  signally  a  monument  of  stability? 
By  his  admirable  researches  and  earnest  writings,  Darwin  has, 
beyond  all  his  contemporaries,  given  an  impulse  to  the  philo- 
sophical investigation  of  the  most  backward  and  obscure  branch 
of  the  biological  sciences  of  his  day ;  he  has  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  a  great  edifice ;  but  he  need  not  be  surprised  if,  in  the 
progress  of  erection,  the  superstructure  is  altered  by  his  success- 
ors, like  the  Duomo  of  Milan  from  the  Roman  to  a  diflerent 
style  of  architecture." 

Entertaining  ourselves  the  opinion  that  something 
more  than  natural  selection  is  requisite  to  account  for 
the  orderly  production  and  succession  of  species,  we 
offer  two  incidental  remarks  upon  the  above  extract. 

1.  We  find  in  it — in  the  phrase  *'  natural  selec- 
tion, or  a  process  of  variation  from  external  intiu- 
ences  "^an  example  of  the  very  common  confusion 
of  two  distinct  things,  viz.,  variation  and  natural 


196  BARWimANA. 

selection.  The  former  has  never  yet  been  shown .  to 
have  its  cause  in  ^'  external  influences, '^  nor  to  occur 
at  random.  As  we  have  elsewhere  insisted,  if  not 
inexplicable,  it  has  never  been  explained ;  all  we  can 
yet  say  is,  that  plants  and  animals  are  prone  to  vary, . 
and  that  some  conditions  favor  variation.  Perhaps  in 
this  Dr.  Falconer  may  yet  find  what  he  seeks :  for 
"  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  there  is  not  in  [its]  na- 
ture a  deeper-seated  and  innate  principle,  to  the  opera- 
tion of  which  natural  selection  is  merely  an  adjunct." 
The  latter,  which  is  the  ensemUe  of  the  external  in- 
fluences, including  the  competition  of  the  individuals 
themselves,  picks  out  certain  variations  as  they  arise, 
but  in  no  proper  sense  can  be  said  to  originate  them. 

2.  Although  we  are  not  quite  sure  how  Dr. 
Falconer  intends  to  apply  the  law  of  phyllotaxis  to 
illustrate  his  idea,  we  fancy  that  a  pertinent  illustra- 
tion may  be  drawn  from  it,  in  this  way.  There  are 
two  sjyecies  of  phyllotaxis,  perfectly  distinct,  and,  we 
suppose,  not  mathematically  reducible  the  one  to  the 
other,  viz. :  (1.)  That  of  alternate  leaves,  with  its  varie- 
ties ;  and  (2.)  That  of  verticillate  leaves,  of  which  op- 
posite leaves  present  the  simplest  case.  That,  although 
generally  constant,  a  change  from  one  variety  of  alter- 
nate phyllotaxis  to  another  should  occur  on  the  same 
axis,  or  on  successive  axes,  is  not  surprising,  the  dif- 
ferent sorts  being  terms  of  a  regular  series — although, 
indeed,  we  have  not  the  least  idea  as  to  how  the  change 
from  the  one  to  the  other  comes  to  pass.  But  it  is 
interesting,  and  in  this  connection  perhaps  instructive, 
to  remark  that,  while  some  dicotyledonous  plants  hold 
to  the  verticillate,  i.  e.,  opposite-leaved  phyllotaxis 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION,   ETG.         1<J7 

throughout,  a  larger  number — through  the  operation 
of  some  deep-seated  and  innate  principle,  which  we 
cannot  fathom — change  abruptly  into  the  other  species 
at  the  second  or  third  node,  and  change  back  again  in 
the  flower,  or  else  effect  a  synthesis  of  the  two  species 
in  a  manner  which  is  puzzling  to  uuderstand.  Here 
is  a  change  from  one  fixed  law  to  another,  as  unac- 
countable, if  not  as  great,  as  from  one  specific  form 
to  another. 

An  elaborate  paper  on  the  vegetation  of  the  Ter- 
tiary period  in  the  southeast  of  France,  by  Count  Gas- 
ton de  Saporta,  published  in  the  Annates  des  Sciences 
Naturelles  in  1862,  vol.  xvi.,  pp.  309-344: — which  we 
have  not  space  to  analyze — is  worthy  of  attention  from 
the  general  inquirer,  on  account  of  its  analysis  of  the 
Tertiary  flora  into  its  separate  types.  Cretaceous,  Aus- 
tral, Tropical,  and  Boreal,  each  of  which  has  its  separate 
and  different  history — and  for  the  announcement  that 
"  the  hiatus,  which,  in  the  idea  of  most  geologists, 
intervened  between  the  close  of  the  Cretaceous  and 
the  beginning  of  the  Tertiary,  appears  to  have  had  no 
existence,  so  far  as  concerns  the  vegetation ;  that  in 
general  it  was  not  by  means  of  a  total  overthrow,  fol- 
lowed by  a  complete  new  emission  of  species,  that  the 
flora  has  been  renewed  at  each  successive  period ;  and 
that  while  the  plants  of  Southern  Europe  inherited 
from  the  Cretaceous  period  more  or  less  rapidly  dis- 
'appeared,  as  also  the  austral  forms,  and  later  the  trop- 
ical tj^es  (except  the  laurel,  the  myrtle,  and  the 
Chafnoerops  hu7nilis\  the  boreal  types,  coming  later, 
survived  all  the  others,  and  now  compose,  either  in 
Europe,  or  in  the  north  of  Asia,  or  in  I^orth  America, 


198  BARWimAXA. 

the  basis  of  the  actual  arborescent  vegetation.  Espe- 
cially "  a  very  considerable  number  of  forms  nearly 
identical  with  tertiary  forms  now  exist  in  America, 
where  they  have  found,  more  easily  than  in  our  [Eu- 
ropean] soil — less  vast  and  less  extended  southward — 
refuD:e  from  ulterior  revolutions."  The  extinction  of 
species  is  attributed  to  two  kinds  of  causes;  the  one 
material  or  physical,  whether  slow  or  rapid ;  the  other 
inherent  in  the  natm^e  of  organic  beings,  incessant, 
but  slow,  in  a  manner  latent,  but  somehow  assigning 
to  the  species,  as  to  the  individuals,  a  limited  j)eriod 
of  existence,  and,  in  some  equally  mysterious  but 
wholly  natural  way,  connected  with  the  development 
of  organic  types:  ^'^j  type  meaning  a  collection  of 
vegetable  forms  constructed  upon  the  same  plan  of 
organization,  of  which  they  reproduce  the  essential 
lineaments  with  certain  secondary  modifications,  and 
which  appear  to  run  back  to  a  common  point  of  de- 
parture." 

In  this  community  of  types,  no  less  than  in  the 
community  of  certain  existing  species,  Saporta  recog- 
nizes a  prolonged  material  union  between  I^orth  Amer- 
ica and  Europe  in  former  times.  Most  naturalists  and 
geologists  reason  in  the  same  way — some  more  cau- 
tiously than  others — yet  perhaps  most  of  them  seem 
not  to  perceive  how  far  such  inferences  imply  the  doc- 
trine of  the  common  origin  of  related  species. 

For  obvious  reasons  such  doctrines  are  likely  to 
find  more  favor  with  botanists  than  with  zoologists. 
But  with  both  the  advance  in  this  direction  is  seen  to 
have  been  rapid  and  great ;  yet  to  us  not  unexpected. 
We  note,  also,  an  evident  disposition,  notwithstanding 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION-,  ETC.         199 

some  endeavors  to  the  contrary,  to  allow  derivative 
hypotheses  to  stand  or  fall  upon  their  own  merits — to 
have  indeed  upon  philosophical  grounds  certain  pre- 
sumptions in  their  favor — and  to  be,  perhaps,  quite  as 
capable  of  being  turned  to  good  account  as  to  bad  ac- 
count in  natural  theology/ 

Among  the  leading  naturalists,  indeed,  such  views 
— taken  in  the  widest  sense — have  one  and,  so  far  as 
we  are  now  aware,  only  one  thoroughgoing  and  thor- 
oughly consistent  opponent,  viz.,  Mr.  Agassiz. 

Most  naturalists  take  into  their  very  conception 
of  a  species,  explicitly  or  by  implication,  the  notion  of 
a  material  connection  resulting  from  the  descent  of 
the  individuals  composing  it  from  a  common  stock,  of 
local  origin.  Agassiz  wholly  eliminates  community 
of  descent  from  his  idea  of  species,  and  even  conceives 
a  species  to  have  been  as  numerous  in  individuals  and 
as  wide-spread  over  space,  or  as  segregated  in  discon- 
tinuous spaces,  from  the  first  as  at  the  later  period. 

The  station  which  it  inhabits,  therefore,  is  with 

'  What  the  Rev.  Principal  Tulloch  remarlcs  in  respect  to  the  phi- 
losophy of  miracles  has  a  pertinent  application  here.  We  quote  at 
second  hand : 

"  The  stoutest  advocates  of  interference  can  mean  nothing  more 
than  that  the  Supreme  Will  has  so  moved  the  hidden  springs  of  Nature 
that  a  new  issue  arises  on  given  circumstances.  The  ordinary  issue  is 
supplanted  by  a  higher  issue.  The  essential  facts  before  us  are  a  cer- 
tain set  of  phenomena,  and  a  Higher  Will  moving  them.  How  moving 
them  ?  is  a  question  for  human  definition ;  the  answer  to  which  does 
not  and  cannot  affect  the  divine  meaning  of  the  change.  Yet  when 
we  reflect  that  this  Higher  Will  is  everywhere  reason  and  wisdom,  it 
seems  a  juster  as  well  as  a  more  comprehensive  view  to  regard  it  as 
operating  by  subordination  and  evolution,  rather  than  by  interference 
or  violation." 


200  LARWIFIANA. 

otlier  naturalists  in  no  wise  essential  to  the  species, 
and  may  not  have  been  the  region  of  its  origin.  In 
Agassiz's  view  the  habitat  is  supposed  to  mark  the 
origin,  and  to  be  a  part  of  the  character  of  the  species. 
The  habitat  is  not  merely  the  place  where  it  is,  but  a 
part  of  what  it  is. 

Most  naturalists  recognize  varieties  of  species; 
and  many,  like  De  Candolle,  have  come  to  conclude 
that  varieties  of  the  highest  grade,  or  races,  so  far 
partake  of  the  characteristics  of  species,  and  are  so  far 
governed  by  the  same  laws,  that  it  is  often  very  diffi- 
cult to  draw  a  clear  and  certain  distinction  between 
the  two.  Agassiz  will  not  allow  that  varieties  or  races 
exist  in  IsTature,  apart  from  man's  agency. 

Most  natm'alists  believe  that  the  origin  of  species  is 
supernatural,  their  dispersion  or  particular  geographi- 
cal area,  natural,  and  their  extinction,  when  they  dis- 
appear, also  the  result  of  physical  causes.  In  the  view 
of  Agassiz,  if  rightly  understood,  all  three  are  equally 
independent  of  physical  cause  and  effect,  are  equally 
supernatural. 

In  comparing  preceding  periods  with  the  present 
and  with  each  other,  most  naturalists  and  palaeontolo- 
gists now  appear  to  recognize  a  certain  number  of 
species  as  having  survived  from  one  epoch  to  the  next, 
or  even  through  more  than  one  formation,  especially 
from  the  Tertiary  into  the  post-Tertiary  period,  and 
from  that  to  the  present  age.  Agassiz  is  understood 
to  believe  in  total  extinctions  and  total  new  creations 
at  each  successive  epoch,  and  even  to  recognize  no  ex- 
isting species  as  ever  contemporary  with  extinct  ones, 
except  in  the  case  of  recent  exterminations. 


SPECIES  AS  TO    VARIATION,  ETC.         201 

These  peculiar  views,  if  sustained,  vnW  effectually 
dispose  of  every  form  of  derivative  hypothesis. 

Keturning  for  a  moment  to  De  Candolle's  article, 
we  are  disposed  to  notice  his  criticism  of  Linnceus's 
"  definition  "  of  the  term  sjyecies  {Philosophia  Botani- 
ca^  E'o.  15Y) :  "  Species  tot  numeramus  qiiot  diver sas, 
form(jB in principio  sunt  creatce^'' — which  he  declares 
illogical,  inapplicable,  and  the  worst  that  has  been  pro- 
pounded. "  So,  to  determine  if  a  form  is  specific,  it 
is  necessary  to  go  back  to  its  origin,  which  is  impos- 
sible. A  definition  by  a  character  which  can  never 
be  verified  is  no  definition  at  all." 

Now,  as  Linnaeus  practically  applied  the  idea  of 
species  with  a  sagacity  which  has  never  been  surpassed, 
and  rarely  equaled,  and  indeed  may  be  said  to  have 
fixed  its  received  meaning  in  natural  history,  it  may 
well  be  inferred  that  in  the  phrase  above  cited  he  did 
not  so  much  undertake  to  frame  a  logical  definition, 
as  to  set  forth  the  idea  which,  in  his  opinion,  lay  at 
the  foundation  of  species ;  on  which  basis  A.  L. 
Jussieu  did  construct  a  logical  definition  — "  Xunc 
rectius  definitur  perennis  individuorum  similium  suc- 
cessio  continuata  generatione  renascentiun."  The  fun- 
damental idea  of  species,  we  would  still  maintain,  is 
that  of  a  chain  of  wdiich  genetically-connected  individ- 
uals are  the  links.  That,  in  the  practical  recognition 
of  species,  the  essential  characteristic  has  to  be  inferred, 
is  no  great  objection — the  general  fact  that  like  engen- 
ders like  being  an  induction  from  a  vast  number  of 
instances,  and  the  only  assumption  being  that  of  the 
uniformity  of  ISTature.  The  idea  of  gravitation,  that 
of  the  atomic  constitution   of  matter,  and  the  like, 


202  DARWINIANA. 

equally  have  to  be  verified  inferentiallj.  If  we  still 
hold  to  the  idea  of  Linnceus,  and  of  Agassiz,  that  ex- 
isting species  were  created  independently  and  essen- 
tially all  at  once  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  era, 
we  could  not  better  the  propositions  of  Linnaeus  and 
of  Jussieu.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  time  has  come 
in  which  we  may  accept,  with  De  Candolle,  then'  suc- 
cessive origination,  at  the  commencement  of  the  pres- 
ent era  or  before,  and  even  by  derivation  from  other 
forms,  then  the  "  in princijpio^^  of  Linnseus  will  refer 
to  that  time,  whenever  it  was,  and  his  proposition  be 
as  sound  and  wise  as  ever. 

In  his  "  Geographic  Botanique  "  (ii.,  1068-lO^Y)  De 
Candolle  discusses  this  subject  at  length,  and  in  the 
same  interest.  Kemarking  that  of  the  two  great  facts 
of  species,  viz.,  likeness  among  the  individuals^  and 
genealogical  connection,  zoologists  have  generally  pre- 
ferred the  latter,^  while  botanists  have  been  divided  in 
opinion,  he  pronounces  for  the  former  as  the  essen- 
tial thing,  in  the  following  argumentative  statement : 

"  Quant  a  moi,  j'ai  ^t6  conduit,  dans  ma  definition  del'espece, 
a  mettre  decidement  la  ressemblance  au-dessus  de  caracteres  de 
succession.  Ce  n'est  pas  seulement  a  cause  des  circonstances 
propres  au  regne  vegetal,  dont  je  m'occupe  exclusivement ;  ce 
n'est  pas  non  plus  afin  de  sortir  ma  definition  des  theories  et  de 
la  rendre  le  plus  possible  utile  aux  naturalistes  descripteurs  et 
nomenclateurs,  c'est  aussi  par  un  motif  philosophique.  Entoute 
chose  il  f aut  aUer  au  fond  des  questions,  quand  on  le  peut.  Or, 
pourquoi  la  reproduction  est-elle  possible,  habituelle,  feconde 
indefiniment,  entre  des  ^tres  organises  que  nous  dirons  de  la 

*  Particularly  citing Flourens  :  "La  ressemblance  n'est  qu'une  con- 
dition secondaire ;  la  condition  essentielle  est  la  descendance :  ce  n'est 
pas  la  ressemblance,  c'est  la  succession  des  individus,  qui  fait  I'espece." 


SPECIES  AS  TO    variation;   ETC.         203 

m^me  espece  ?  Parce  qu'ils  se  resserablent  et  uniquemcrit  a 
cause  de  cela.  Lorsque  deux  esp^ces  ne  peuvent,  ou,  s'il  s'agit 
d'animaux  superieurs,  ne  peuvent  et  ne  veulent  se  croiser,  c'est 
qu'elles  sont  tres  differentes.  Si  Ton  obtient  des  croisements, 
c'est  que  les  individus  sont  analogues  ;  si  ces  croisements  don- 
nent  des  produits  feconds,  c'est  que  les  individus  etaient  plus 
analogues ;  si  ces  produits  eux-memes  sont  feconds,  c'est  que  la 
ressemblance  etait  plus  grande  ;^  s'ils  sont  f econd  habituellement 
et  indeflniment,  c'est  que  la  ressemblance  interieure  et  exterieure 
etait  tres  grande.  Ainsi  le  degr6  de  ressemblance  est  le  fond  ; 
la  reproduction  en  est  seulement  la  manifestation  et  la  mesure, 
et  il  est  logique  de  placer  la  cause  au-dessus  de  I'effet." 

"We  are  not  yet  convinced.  "We  still  hold  that 
genealogical  connection,  rather  than  mutual  resem- 
blance, is  the  fundamental  thing — first  on  the  ground 
of  fact,  and  then  from  the  philosophy  of  the  case. 
Practically,  no  botanist  can  say  what  amount  of  dis- 
similarity is  compatible  with  unity  of  species  ;  in  wild 
plants  it  is  sometimes  very  great,  in  cultivated  races 
often  enormous.  De  Candolle  liimself  informs  us  that 
the  different  variations  which  the  same  oak-tree  ex- 
hibits are  significant  indications  of  a  disposition  to  set 
up  separate  varieties,  which  becoming  hereditary  may 
constitute  a  race ;  he  evidently  looks  upon  the  extreme 
forms,  say  of  Quercus  Robur^  as  having  thus  origi- 
nated ;  and  on  this  ground,  inferred  from  transitional 
forms,  and  not  from  their  mutual  resemblance,  he 
includes  them  in  that  species.  This  will  be  more 
apparent  should  the  discovery  of  transitions,  which 
he  leads  us  to  expect,  hereafter  cause  the  four  provi- 
sional species  which  attend  Q,  Hobur  to  be  merged 
in  that  species.  It  may  rightly  be  replied  that  this 
conclusion  would  be  arrived  at  from  the  likeness  step 


204  DABWINIANA. 

by  step  in  the  series  of  forms ;  but  the  cause  of  the 
likeness  here  is  obvious.  And  this  brings  in  our 
"  motif  ])Mlo80])hiqiieP 

Not  to  insist  that  the  likeness  is  after  all  the  vari- 
able, not  the  constant,  element — to  learn  which  is  the 
essential  thing,  resemblance  among  indi^dduals  or  their 
genetic  connection — we  have  only  to  ask  which  can  be 
the  cause  of  the  other. 

In  hermaphrodite  plants  (the  normal  case),  and  even 
as  the  question  is  ingeniously  put  by  De  Candolle  in 
the  above  extract,  the  former  sm-ely  cannot  be  the  cause 
of  the  latter,  though  it  may,  in  case  of  crossing,  offer 
occasion.  But,  on  the  ground  of  the  most  funda- 
mental of  all  things  in  the  constitution  of  plants  and 
animals — the  fact  incapable  of  further  analysis,  that 
individuals  reproduce  their  like,  that  characteristics 
are  inheritable — the  likeness  is  a  direct  natural  con- 
sequence of  the  genetic  succession  ;  "  and  it  is  logical 
to  place  the  cause  above  the  effect." 

AYe  are  equally  disposed  to  combat  a  proposition 
of  De  Candolle's  about  genera,  elaborately  argued  in 
the  "Geographie  Botanique,"  and  incidentally  reaf- 
fii'med  in  his  present  article,  viz.,  that  genera  are  more 
natural  than  species,  and  more  correctly  distmguished 
by  people  in  general,  as  is  shown  by  vernacular  names. 
But  we  have  no  space  left  in  which  to  present  some 
evidence  to  the  contrary. 


Y. 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY;  THE  RELATIONS  OF  NORTH 
AMERICAN  TO  NORTHEAST  ASIAN  AND  TO  TERTIARY 
VEGETATION. 

(A  Pkesipe^ttial  Address  to  the  Ameeican  Association  foe  the  Advance- 
ment OF  Science,  at  DuBrQUE,  August,  1S72.) 

The  session  being  now  happily  inaiignratecl,  your 
presiding  officer  of  the  last  year  has  only  one  duty  to 
perform  before  he  surrenders  the  chair  to  his  success- 
or. If  allowed  to  borrow  a  simile  from  the  language 
of  my  own  profession,  I  might  liken  the  President  of 
this  Association  to  a  biennial  plant.  He  flourishes  for 
the  year  in  which  he  comes  into  existence,  and  per- 
forms his  appropriate  functions  as  presiding  officer. 
When  the  second  year  comes  round,  he  is  expected  to 
blossom  out  in  an  address  and  disappear.  Each  presi- 
dent, as  he  retires,  is  naturally  expected  to  contribute 
something  from  his  own  investigations  or  his  own 
line  of  study,  usually  to  discuss  some  particular  scien- 
tific topic. 

l^ow,  although  I  have  cultivated  the  field  of  Xorth 
American  botany,  with  some  assiduity,  for  more  than 
forty  years,  have  reviewed  our  vegetable  hosts,  and 
assigned  to  no  small  number  of  them  their  names  and 
their  place  in  the  ranks,  yet,  so  far  as  our  own  wide 
country  is  concerned,  I  have  been  to  a  great  extent  a 


206  DARWINIANA. 

closet  botanist.  Until  this  summer  I  had  not  seen  the 
Mississippi,  nor  set  foot  upon  a  prairie. 

To  gratify  a  natural  interest,  and  to  gain  some 
title  for  addressing  a  body  of  practical  natm-alists  and 
explorers,  I  have  made  a  pilgrimage  across  the  conti- 
nent. I  have  sought  and  viewed  in  their  native 
haimts  many  a  plant  and  flower  which  for  me  had 
long  bloomed  unseen,  or  only  in  the  hortus  siccus.  I 
have  been  able  to  see  for  myself  what  species  and 
what  forms  constitute  the  main  features  of  the  vege- 
tation of  each  successive  region,  and  record — as  the 
vegetation  unerringly  does — the  permanent  character-- 
istics  of  its  climate. 

Passing  on  from  the  eastern  district,  marked  by 
its  equably  distributed  rainfall,  and  therefore  natural- 
ly forest-clad,  I  have  seen  the  trees  diminish  in  num- 
ber, give  place  to  wide  prairies,  restrict  their  growth 
to  the  borders  of  streams,  and  then  disappear  from  the 
boundless  drier  plains ;  have  seen  grassy  plains  change 
into  a  brown  and  sere  desert — desert  in  the.  common 
sense,  but  hardly  anywhere  botanically  so — have  seen 
a  fair  growth  of  coniferous  trees  adorning  the  more 
favored  slopes  of  a  mountain-range  high  enough  to 
compel  summer  showers ;  have  traversed  that  broad 
and  bare  elevated  region  shut  off  on  both  sides  by 
high  mountains  from  the  moisture  supplied  by  either 
ocean,  and  longitudinally  intersected  by  sierras  which 
seemingly  remain  as  naked  as  they  were  born ;  and 
have  reached  at  length  the  westward  slopes  of  that 
high  mountain-barrier  which,  refreshed  by  the  Pacific, 
bears  the  noble  forests  of  the  Sierra  I^evada  and  the 
Coast  Ranges,  and  among  them  trees  which  are  the 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  207 

wonder  of  the  world.  As  I  stood  in  their  shade,  in 
the  groves  of  Mariposa  and  Calaveras,  and  again 
under  the  canopy  of  the  commoner  redwood,  raised 
on  columns  of  such  majestic  height  and  ample  girth, 
it  occurred  to  me  that  I  could  not  do  better  than  to 
share  with  you,  upon  this  occasion,  some  of  the 
thoughts  which  possessed  my  mind.  In  their  devel- 
opment they  may,  perhaps,  lead  us  up  to  questions  of 
considerable  scientiiic  interest. 

I  shall  not  detain  you  with  any  remarks — which 
would  now  be  trite — upon  the  size  or  longevity  of 
these  far-famed  Seqnoia-trees,  or  of  the  sugar-pines, 
incense-cedar,  and  firs  associated  with  them,  of  which 
even  the  prodigious  bulk  of  the  dominating  Sequoia 
does  not  sensibly  diminish  the  grandeur.  Although 
no  account  and  no  photographic  representation  of 
either  species  of  the  far-famed  Sequoia-trees  gives  any 
adequate  impression  of  their  singular  majesty — still 
less  of  their  beauty — yet  my  interest  in  them  did  not 
culminate  merely  or  mainly  in  considerations  of  their 
size  and  age.  Other  trees,  in  other  parts  of  the  world, 
may  claim  to  be  older.  Certain  Australian  gum- 
trees  (Eucalypti)  are  said  to  be  taller.  Some,  we  are 
told,  rise  so  high  that  they  might  even  cast  a  flicker  of 
shadow  upon  the  summit  of  the  Pyramid  of  Cheops. 
Yet  the  oldest  of  them  doubtless  grew  from  seed 
w^hich  was  shed  long  after  the  names  of  the  pyramid- 
builders  had  been  forgotten.  So  far  as  we  can  judge 
from  the  actual  counting  of  the  layers  of  several  trees, 
no  Sequoia  now  alive  sensibly  antedates  the  Christian 
era. 

Nor  was  I  much  impressed  with  an  attraction  of 


208  DAEWINIANA. 

man's  adding.  Tliat  the  more  remarkable  of  these 
trees  should  bear  distinguishing  appellations  seems 
proper  enough ;  but  the  tablets  of  personal  names 
which  are  affixed  to  many  of  them  in  the  most  visited 
groves — as  if  the  memory  of  more  or  less  notable 
people  of  our  day  might  be  made  enduring  by  the 
juxtaposition — do  suggest  some  incongruity.  When 
we  consider  that  a  hand's  breadth  at  the  circumfer- 
ence of  any  one  of  the  venerable  trunks  so  placarded 
has  recorded  in  annual  lines  the  lifetime  of  the  indi- 
vidual thus  associated  with  it,  one  may  question 
whether  the  next  hand's  breadth  may  not  measure  the 
fame  of  some  of  the  names  thus  ticketed  for  adventi- 
tious immortality.  Whether  it  be  the  man  or  the  tree 
that  is  honored  in  the  connection,  probably  either 
would  live  as  long,  in  fact  and  in  memory,  without  it. 

One  notable  thing  about  the  Sequoia-trees  is  their 
isolation.  Most  of  the  trees  associated  with  them  are 
of  peculiar  species,  and  some  of  them  are  nearly  as 
local.  Yet  every  pine,  fii',  and  cypress  of  California 
is  in  some  sort  familiar,  because  it  has  near  relatives 
in  other  parts  of  the  world.  But  the  redwoods  have 
none.  The  redwood — including  in  that  name  the  two 
species  of  "  big-trees" — belongs  to  the  general  Cypress 
family,  but  is  sui  generis.  Thus  isolated  systematical- 
ly, and  extremely  isolated  geographically,  and  so  won- 
derful in  size  and  port,  they  more  than  other  trees 
suggest  questions. 

Were  they  created  thus  local  and  lonely,  denizens 
of  California  only  ;  one  in  limited  numbers  in  a  few 
choice  spots  on  the  Sierra  Nevada,  the  other  along  the 
Coast  Kange  from  the  Bay  of  Monterey  to  the  fron- 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  209 

tiers  of  Oregon  ?  Are  they  veritable  Melcliizedeks, 
without  pedigree  or  early  relationship,  and  possibly 
fated  to  be  without  descent  ? 

Or  are  they  now  coming  upon  the  stage — or  rather 
were  they  coming  but  for  man's  interference — to  play 
a  part  in  the  future  ? 

Or  are  they  remnants,  sole  and  scanty  smwivors  of 
a  race  that  has  played  a  grander  part  in  the  past,  but 
is  now  verging  to  extinction  ?  Have  they  had  a 
career,  and  can  that  career  be  ascertained  or  surmised, 
so  that  we  may  at  least  guess  whence  they  came,  and 
how,  and  when  ? 

Time  was,  and  not  long  ago,  when  such  questions 
as  these  were  regarded  as  useless  and  vain — when  stu- 
dents of  natural  history,  unmindful  of  what  the  name 
denotes,  were  content  with  a  knowledge  of  things  as 
they  now  are,  but  gave  little  heed  as  to  how  they  came 
to  be  so.  IS'ow  such  questions  are  held  to  be  legiti- 
mate, and  perhaps  not  wholly  unanswerable.  It  can- 
not now  be  said  that  these  trees  inhabit  their  present 
restricted  areas  simply  because  they  are  there  placed 
in  the  climate  and  soil  of  all  the  world  most  congenial 
to  them.  These  must  indeed  be  congenial,  or  they 
would  not  survive.  But  when  we  see  how  the  Aus- 
tralian Eucalyptus-trees  thrive  upon  the  Californian 
coast,  and  how  these  very  redwoods  flourish  upon 
another  continent ;  how  the  so-called  wild-oat  (A vena 
sterilis  of  the  Old  World)  has  taken  full  possession  of 
California ;  how  that  cattle  and  horses,  introduced  by 
the  Spaniard,  have  spread  as  widely  and  made  them- 
selves as  much  at  home  on  the  plains  of  La  Plata  as 
on  those  of  Tartary;  and    that  the   cardoon-thistle- 


210  DARWINIAKA. 

seeds,  and  others  tliej  brouglit  witli  them,  have  mul- 
tiplied there  into  numbers  probably  much  exceeding 
those  extant  in  their  native  lands ;  indeed,  when  we  con- 
template our  own  race,  and  our  particular  stock,  taking 
such  recent  but  dominating  possession  of  this  Xew 
World ;  when  we  consider  how  the  indigenous  flora 
of  islands  generally  succumbs  to  the  foreigners  which 
come  in  the  train  of  man  ;  and  that  most  weeds  (i.  e., 
the  prepotent  plants  in  open  soil)  of  all  temperate 
climates  are  not  "  to  the  manner  born,"  but  are  self- 
invited  intruders — we  must  needs  abandon  the  notion 
of  any  primordial  and  absolute  adaptation  of  plants 
and  animals  to  their  habitats,  which  may  stand  in  lieu 
of  explanation,  and  so  preclude  our  inquiring  any 
further.  The  harmony  of  ^Kature  and  its  admirable 
perfection  need  not  be  regarded-  as  inflexible  and 
changeless.  ^N^or  need  Nature  be  likened  to  a  statue, 
or  a  cast  in  rigid  bronze,  but  rather  to  an  organism, 
with  play  and  adaptability  of  parts,  and  life  and  even 
soul  informing  the  whole.  Under  the  former  view 
l^ature  would  be  "the  faultless  monster  which  the 
world  ne'er  saw,"  but  inscrutable  as  the  Sphinx,  whom 
it  were  vain,  or  worse,  to  question  of  the  whence  and 
whither.  Under  the  other,  the  perfection  of  ^Nature, 
if  relative,  is  multifarious  and  ever  renewed;  and 
much  that  is  enigmatical  now  may  find  explanation  in 
some  record  of  the  past. 

That  the  two  species  of  redwood  we  are  contem- 
plating originated  as  they  are  and  where  they  are,  and 
for  the  part  they  are  now  playing,  is,  to  say  the  least, 
not  a  scientific  supposition,  nor  in  any  sense  a  probable 
one.     ISTor  is  it  more  likely  that  they  are  destined  to 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  211 

play  a  conspicuous  part  in  tlie  future,  or  that  tliey 
would  have  done  so,  even  if  tlie  Indian's  fires  and  the 
white  man's  axe  had  spared  them.  The  redwood  of 
the  coast  {Sequoia  sempervii^ens)  had  the  stronger  hold 
upon  existence,  forming  as  it  did  large  forests  through- 
out a  narrow  belt  about  three  hundred  miles  in  length, 
and  being  so  tenacious  of  life  that  every  large  stump 
sprouts  into  a  copse.  But  it  does  not  pass  the  bay 
of  Monterey,  nor  cross  the  line  of  Oregon,  although 
so  grandly  developed  not  far  below  it.  The  more  re- 
markable Sequoia  gigantea  of  the  Sierra  exists  in  num- 
bers so  limited  that  the  separate  groves  may  be  reck- 
oned upon  the  fingers,  and  the  trees  of  most  of  them 
have  been  counted,  except  near  their  southern  limit, 
where  they  are  said  to  be  more  copious.  A  species 
limited  in  individuals  holds  its  existence  by  a  precari- 
ous tenure ;  and  this  has  a  foothold  only  in  a  few  shel- 
tered spots,  of  a  happy  mean  in  temperature,  and 
locally  favored  with  moisture  in  summer.  Even  there, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  the  pines  with  which  they 
are  associated  (Pinus  Lambertiana  and  P.  ponderosa), 
the  firs  (Abies  grandis  and  A.  amabilis),  and  even  the 
incense-cedar  (Libocedrus  decurrens),  possess  a  great 
advantage,  and,  though  they  strive  in  vain  to  emulate 
their  size,  wholly  overpower  the  Sequoias  in  numbers. 
"To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given."  The  force  of 
numbers  eventually  wins.  At  least  in  the  commonly- 
visited  groves  Sequoia  gigantea  is  invested  in  its  last 
stronghold,  can  neither  advance  into  more  exposed 
positions  above,  nor  fall  back  into  drier  and  barer 
ground  below,  nor  hold  its  own  in  the  long-run  where 
it  is,  under  present  conditions ;  and  a  little  further 


212  DARWimAITA. 

drying  of  tlie  climate,  wliieli  must  once  have  been 
mncli  moister  than  now,  would  precipitate  its  doom. 
Whatever  the  individual  longe\dty,  certain  if  not  speedy 
is  the  decline  of  a  race  in  which  a  high  death-rate  af- 
flicts the  young.  Seedlings  of  the  big  trees  occur  not 
rarely,  indeed,  but  in  meagre  proportion  to  those  of 
associated  trees ;  and  small  indeed  is  the  chance  that 
any  of  these  will  attain  to  "  the  days  of  the  years  of 
their  fathers."  "Few  and  evil"  are  the  days  of  all 
the  forest  likely  to  be,  while  man,  both  barbarian  and 
civilized,  torments  them  with  fires,  fatal  at  once  to 
seedlings,  and  at  length  to  the  aged  also.  The  forests 
of  California,  proud  as  the  State  may  be  of  them,  are 
already  too  scanty  and  insufficient  for  her  uses.  Two 
lines,  such  as  may  be  drawn  with  one  sweep  of  a  brush 
over  the  map,  would  cover  them  all.  The  coast  red- 
wood— the  most  important  tree  in  California,  although 
a  million  times  more  numerous  than  its  relative  of  the 
Sierra — is  too  good  to  live  long.  Such  is  its  value  for 
lumber  and  its  accessibility,  that,  judging  the  future 
by  the  past,  it  is  not  likely,  in  its  primeval  growth,  to 
outlast  its  rarer  fellow-species. 

Happily  man  preserves  and  disseminates  as  well  as 
destroys.  The  species  will  doubtless  be  preserved  to 
science,  and  for  ornamental  and  other  uses,  in  its  own 
and  other  lands  ;  and  the  more  remarkable  individuals 
of  the  present  day  are  likely  to  be  sedulously  cared 
for,  all  the  more  so  as  they  become  scarce. 

Our  third  question  remains  to  be  answered :  Have 
these  famous  Sequoias  played  in  former  times  and  up- 
on a  larger  stage  a  more  imposing  part,  of  which  the 
present  is  but  the  epilogue  ?    We  cannot  gaze  high  up 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  213 

the  huge  and  venerable  trunks,  which  one  crosses  the 
continent  to  behold,  without  wishing  that  these  patri- 
archs of  the  grove  were  able,  like  the  long-lived  ante- 
diluvians of  Scripture,  to  hand  down  to  us,  through  a 
few  generations,  the  traditions  of  centuries,  and  so  tell 
us  somewhat  of  the  history  of  their  race.  Fifteen 
hundi'ed  annual  layers  have  been  counted,  or  satisfac- 
torily made  out,  upon  one  or  two  fallen  trunks.  It  is 
probable  that  close  to  the  heart  of  some  of  the  living 
trees  may  be  found  the  circle  that  records  the  year  of 
our  Saviour's  nativity.  A  few  generations  of  such 
trees  might  carry  the  history  a  long  way  back.  But 
the  ground  they  stand  upon,  and  the  marks  of  very 
recent  geological  change  and  vicissitude  in  the  region 
around,  testify  that  not  very  many  such  generations 
can  have  flourished  just  there,  at  least  in  an  unbroken 
series.  When  their  site  was  covered  by  glaciers,  these 
Sequoias  must  have  occupied  other  stations,  if,  as  there 
is  reason  to  believe,  they  then  existed  in  the  land. 

I  have  said  that  the  redwoods  have  no  near  rela- 
tives in  the  country  of  their  abode,  and  none  of  their 
genus  anywhere  else.  Perhaps  something  may  be 
learned  of  their  genealogy  by  inquiring  of  such  rela- 
tives as  they  have.  There  are  only  two  of  any  partic- 
ular nearness  of  kin  ;  and  they  are  far  away.  One  is 
the  bald  cypress,  our  Southern  cypress,  Taxodium^ 
inhabiting  the  swamps  of  the  Atlantic  coast  from 
Maryland  to  Texas,  thence  extending — with,  probably, 
a  specific  difference — into  Mexico.  It  is  well  known  as 
one  of  the  largest  trees  of  our  Atlantic  forest-district, 
and,  although  it  never — except  perhaps  in  Mexico,  and 
in  rare  instances — attains  the  portliness  of  its  Western 
10 


214  LARWimANA. 

relatives,  yet  it  may  equal  them  in  longevity.  Tlie 
otlier  relative  is  Glyptostrobus^  a  sort  of  modified  Tax- 
odium,  being  about  as  much  like  our  bald  cypress  as 
one  species  of  redwood  is  like  the  other. 

!N'ow,  species  of  the  same  type,  especially  when 
few,  and  the  type  peculiar,  are,  in  a  general  way,  asso- 
ciated geographically,  i.  e.,  inhabit  the  same  country, 
or  (in  a  large  sense)  the  same  region.  Where  it  is  not 
so,  where  near  relatives  are  separated,  there  is  usually 
something  to  be  explained.  Here  is  an  instance. 
These  four  trees,  sole  representatives  of  their  tribe, 
dwell  almost  in  three  separate  quarters  of  the  world : 
the  two  redwoods  in  California,  the  bald  cypress  in 
Atlantic  ITorth  America,  its  near  relative,  Glyptostro- 
bus,  in  China. 

It  was  not  always  so.  In  the  Tertiary  period,  the 
geological  botanists  assm'e  us,  our  otvtl  very  Taxodium 
or  bald  cypress,  and  a  Glyptostrobus,  exceedingly  like 
the  present  Chinese  tree,  and  more  than  one  Sequoia, 
coexisted  in  a  fourth  quarter  of  the  globe,  viz.,  in 
Europe !  This  brings  up  the  question.  Is  it  possible 
to  bridge  over  these  four  wide  intervals  of  space  and 
the  much  vaster  interval  of  time,  so  as  to  bring  these 
extraordinarily  separated  relatives  into  connection  ? 
The  evidence  which  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  this 
question  is  various  and  widely  scattered.  I  bespeak 
your  patience  while  I  endeavor  to  bring  together,  in 
an  abstract,  the  most  important  points  of  it. 

Some  interesting  facts  may  come  out  by  comparing 
generally  the  botany  of  the  three  remote  regions,  each 
of  which  is  the  sole  home  of  one  of  these  genera,  i.  e., 
Sequoia  in  California,  Taxodium  in  the  Atlantic  United 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  215 

States/  and  Glyptostrobus  in  China,  wliicli  compose 
the  whole  of  the  peculiar  tribe  under  consideration. 
•  J^ote  then,  first,  that  there  is  another  set  of  three 
or  four  peculiar  trees,  in  this  case  of  the  yew  family, 
which  has  just  the  same  peculiar  distribution,  and 
which  therefore  may  have  the  same  explanation,  what- 
ever that  explanation  be.  The  genus  Torreya,  which 
commemorates  our  botanical  ]^estor  and  a  former 
president  of  this  Association,  Dr.  Torrey,  was  founded 
upon  a  tree  rather  lately  discovered  (that  is,  about 
thirty-five  years  ago)  in  Northern  Florida.  It  is  a 
noble,  yew-like  tree,  and  very  local,  being,  so  far  as 
known,  nearly  confined  to  a  few  miles  along  the  shores 
of  a  single  river.  It  seems  as  if  it  had  somehow  been 
crowded  down  out  of  the  Alleghanies  into  its  present 
limited  southern  quarters ;  for  in  cultivation  it  evinces 
a  northern  hardiness.  Now,  another  species  of  Torreya 
is  a  characteristic  tree  of  Japan ;  and  one  very  like  it, 
if  not  the  same,  inhabits  the  mountains  of  l^orthern 
China — belongs,  therefore,  to  the  Eastern  Asiatic  tem- 
perate region,  of  which  ^N^orthern  China  is  a  part,  and 
Japan,  as  we  shall  see,  the  portion  most  interesting  to 
us.  There  is  only  one  more  species  of  Torreya,  and 
that  is  a  companion  of  the  redwoods  in  California.  It 
is  the  tree  locally  known  under  the  name  of  the  Cali- 
fornia nutmeg.  Here  are  three  or  four  near  brethren, 
species  of  the  same  genus,  known  nowhere  else  than  in 
these  three  habitats. 

*  The  phrase  "  Atlantic  United  States  "  is  here  used  throughout  in 
contradistinction  to  Pacific  United  States :  to  the  former  of  course  be- 
long, botanically  and  geographically,  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and 
its  tributaries  up  to  the  eastern  border  of  the  great  woodless  plains, 
which  constitute  an  intermediate  region. 


216  DARWINIANA. 

Moreover,  the  Torreja  of  Florida  is  associated  with 
a  yew  ;  and  the  trees  of  this  grove  are  the  only  yew- 
trees  of  Eastern  E'orth  America ;  for  the  yew  of  our 
^Northern  woods  is  a  decumbent  shrub.  A  yew-tree, 
perhaps  the  same,  is  found  with  Taxodium  in  the 
temperate  parts  of  Mexico.  The  only  other  yews  in 
America  grow  with  the  redwoods  and  the  other  Tor- 
reya  in  California,  and  extend  northward  into  Ore- 
gon. Tews  are  also  associated  with  Torreya  in  Japan ; 
and  they  extend  westward  through  Mantchooria  and 
the  Himalayas  to  Western  Europe,  and  even  to  the 
Azores  Islands,  where  occurs  the  common  yew  of  the 
Old  World. 

So  we  have  three  groups  of  coniferous  trees  which 
agree  in  this  peculiar  geographical  distribution,  with, 
however,  a  notable  extension  of  range  in  the  case  of 
the  yew :  1.  The  redwoods,  and  their  relatives.  Tax- 
odium  and  Glyptostrobus,  which  differ  so  as  to  consti- 
tute a  genus  for  each  of  the  three  regions ;  2.  The  Tor- 
reyas,  more  nearly  akin,  merely  a  different  .species  in 
each  region ;  3.  The  yews,  still  more  closely  related 
while  more  widely  disseminated,  of  which  it  is  yet 
uncertain  whether  they  constitute  seven,  five,  three,  or 
only  one  species.  Opinions  differ,  and  can  hardly  be 
brought  to  any  decisive  test.  However  it  be  deter- 
mined, it  may  still  be  said  that  the  extreme  differences 
among  the  yews  do  not  surpass  those  of  the  recognized 
variations  of  the  European  yew,  the  cultivated  races 
included. 

It  appears  to  me  that  these  several  instances  all 
raise  the  very  same  question,  only  with  different  de- 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  217 

grees  of  empliasis,  and,  if  to  be  explained  at  all,  will 
liave  the  same  kind  of  explanation. 

Continning  the  comparison  between  the  three  re- 
gions with  w^hich  we  are  concerned,  we  note  that  each 
has  its  own  species  of  j)ines,  firs,  larches,  etc.,  and  of 
a  few  deciduous-leaved  trees,  such  as  oaks  and  maples ; 
all  of  which  have  no  peculiar  significance  for  the  pres- 
ent  purpose,  because  they  are  of  genera  which  are 
common  all  round  the  northern  hemisphere.     Leaving 
these  out  of  view,  the  noticeable  point  is  that  the  vege- 
tation of  California  is  most  strikingly  unlike  that  of 
the  Atlantic  United  States.    They  possess  some  plants, 
and  some  peculiarly  American  plants,  in  common — 
enough  to  show,  as  I  imagine,  that  the  difficulty  was 
not  in  the  getting  from  the  one  district  to  the  other, 
or  into  both  from  a  common  source,  but  in  abiding 
there.     The  primordially  unbroken  forest  of  Atlan- 
tic N^orth  America,  nourished  by  rainfall  distributed 
throughout  the  year,  is  widely  separated  from  the  west- 
ern region  of  sparse  and  discontinuous  tree-belts  of  the 
same  latitude  on  the  western  side  of   the  continent 
(where  summer  rain  is  wanting,  or  nearly  so),  by  im- 
mense treeless  plains  and  plateaux  of  more  or  less 
aridity,  traversed  by  longitudinal  mountain-ranges  of 
a  similar  character.     Their  nearest  approach  is  at  the 
north,  in  the  latitude  of  Lake  Superior,  where,  on  a 
more  rainy  line,  trees  of  the  Atlantic  forest  and  that 
of  Oregon  may  be  said  to  intermix.     The  change  of 
species  and  of  the  aspect  of  vegetation  in  crossing,  say 
on  the  forty-seventh  parallel,  is  slight  in  comparison 
with  that  on  the  thirty-seventh  or  near  it.     Confining 
our  attention  to  the  lower  latitude,  and  under  the 


218  DARWINIANA. 

exceptions  already  specially  noted,  we  may  say  that 
almost  every  characteristic  form  in  the  vegetation  of 
the  Atlantic  States  is  wanting  in  Calif  omia,  and  the 
characteristic  plants  and  trees  of  California  are  want- 
ing here. 

California  has  no  magnolia  nor  tulip  trees,  nor  star- 
anise  tree ;  no  so-called  papaw  (Asimina) ;  no  barberry 
of  the  common  single-leaved  sort ;  no  Podophyllum  or 
other  of  the  peculiar  associated  genera ;  no  nelumbo 
nor  white  water-lily ;  no  prickly  ash  nor  sumach ;  no 
loblolly-bay  nor  Stuartia ;  no  basswood  nor  linden- 
trees  ;  neither  locust,  honey-locust,  coifee-trees  (Cym- 
nocladus)  nor  yellow-wood  (Cladrastis) ;  nothing  an- 
swering to  Hydrangea  or  witch-hazel,  to  gum-trees 
(^yssa  and  Liquidambar),  Yiburnum  or  Diervilla ;  it 
has  few  asters  and  golden-rods ;  no  lobelias ;  no  huckle- 
berries and  hardly  any  blueberries ;  no  Epiggea,  chami 
of  our  earliest  Eastern  spring,  tempering  an  icy  April 
wind  with  a  delicious  wild  fragrance ;  no  Kalmia  nor 
Clethra,  nor  holly,  nor  persimmon ;  no  catalpa-tree,  nor 
trumpet-creeper  (Tecoma) ;  nothing  answering  to  sas- 
safras, nor  to  benzoin-tree,  nor  to  hickory;  neither 
mulberiy  nor  elm ;  no  beech,  true  chestnut,  hornbeam, 
nor  ironwood,  nor  a  proper  birch-tree ;  and  the  enu- 
meration might  be  continued  very  much  fm'ther  by 
naming  herbaceous  plants  and  others  familiar  only  to 
botanists. 

In  their  place  California  is  filled  with  plants  of 
other  t}^es — trees,  shrubs,  and  herbs,  of  which  I  will 
only  remark  that  they  are,  with  one  or  two  exceptions, 
as  different  from  the  plants  of  the  Eastern  Asiatic 
region  with  which  we  are  concerned  (Japan,  China,  and 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  219 

Mantcliooi'ia),  as  they  are  from  those  of  Atlantic  Xorth 
America.  Their  near  relatives,  when  they  have  any 
in  other  lands,  are  mostly  southward,  on  the  Mexican 
plateau,  or  many  as  far  south  as  Chili.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  plants  of  the  intervening  great  Plains, 
except  that  northward  in  the  subsaline  vegetation  there 
are  some  close  alliances  w^th  the  flora  of  the  steppes 
of  Siberia.  And  along  the  crests  of  high  mountain- 
ranges  the  Arctic- Alpine  flora  has  sent  southward  more 
or  less  numerous  representatives  thi'ough  the  whole 
length  of  the  country. 

If  we  now  compare,  as  to  their  flora  generally,  the 
Atlantic  United  States  with  Japan,  Mantchooria,  and 
JSTorthern  China — i.  e..  Eastern  ]N'orth  America  with 
Eastern  ]S^orth  Asia,  haK  the  earth's  circumference 
apart — we  find  an  astonishing  similarity.  The  larger 
part  of  the  genera  of  our  own  region,  which  I  have 
enumerated  as  wanting  in  California,  are  present  in 
Japan  or  Mantchooria,  along  with  many  other  peculiar 
plants,  divided  between  the  two.  There  are  plants 
enough  of  the  one  region  which  have  no  representa- 
tives in  the  other.  There  are  types  which  appear  to 
have  reached  the  Atlantic  States  from  the  south ;  and 
there  is  a  larger  infusion  of  subtropical  Asiatic  types 
into  temperate  China  and  Japan ;  among  these  there 
is  no  relationship  between  the  two  countries  to  speak 
of.  There  are  also,  as  I  have  already  said,  no  small 
number  of  genera  and  some  species  which,  being  com- 
mon all  round  or  partly  round  the  northern  temperate 
zone,  have  no  special  significance  because  of  their 
occurrence  in  these  two  antipodal  floras,  although  they 
have  testimony  to  bear  upon  the  general  question  of 


220  LARWIFIAN-A. 

geographical  distribution.  Tlie  point  to  be  remarked 
is,  that  many,  or  even  most,  of  the  genera  and  species 
which  are  pecuhar  to  I^orth  America  as  compared  with 
Europe,  and  largely  peculiar  to  Atlantic  ISTorth  Amer- 
ica as  compared  with  the  Calif  ornian  region,  are  also 
represented  in  Japan  and  Mantchooria,  either  by  iden- 
tical or  by  closely-similar  forms  !  The  same  rule  holds 
on  a  more  northward  line,  although  not  so  strikingly. 
If  we  compare  the  plants,  say  of  !N^ew  England  and 
Pennsylvania  (latitude  45°-47°),  with  those  of  Oregon, 
and  then  with  those  of  ^Northeastern  Asia,  we  shall  find 
many  of  onr  own  cnrioiisly  repeated  in  the  latter, 
while  only  a  small  number  of  them  can  be  traced  along 
the  route  even  so  far  as  the  western  slope  of  the  Eocky 
Mountains.  And  these  repetitions  of  East  American 
types  in  Japan  and  neighboring  districts  are  in  all  de- 
grees of  likeness.  Sometimes  the  one  is  undistinguish- 
able  from  the  other ;  sometimes  there  is  a  difference  of 
aspect,  but  hardly  of  tangible  character;  sometimes 
the  two  would  be  termed  marked  varieties  if  they  grew 
naturally  in  the  same  forest  or  in  the  same  region ; 
sometimes  they  are  what  the  botanist  calls  representa- 
tive species,  the  one  answering  closely  to  the  other^ 
but  with  some  differences  regarded  as  specific ;  some- 
times the  two  are  merely  of  the  same  genus,  or  not 
quite  that,  but  of  a  single  or  very  few  species  in  each 
country ;  in  which  case  the  point  which  interests  us 
is,  that  this  peculiar  limited  type  should  occur  in  two 
antipodal  places,  and  nowhere  else. 

It  would  be  tedious,  and,  except  to  botanists,  ab- 
struse, to  enumerate  instances ;  yet  the  whole  strength 
of  the  case  depends  upon  the  number  of  such   in- 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  221 

stances.  I  propose  therefore,  if  tlie  Association  does 
me  the  honor  to  print  this  discourse,  to  append  in  a 
note  a  list  of  the  more  remarkable  ones/  But  I  would 
here  mention  certain  cases  as  specimens. 

Our  Rhus  Toxicodendron,  or  poison-ivj,  is  very 
exactly  repeated  in  Japan,  but  is  found  in  no  other 
part  of  the  world,  although  a  species  much  like  it 
abounds  in  California.  Our  other  poisonous  Rhus  (R.. 
venenata),  commonly  called  poison-dogwood,  is  in  no 
way  represented  in  Western  America,  but  has  so  close 
an  analogue  in  Japan  that  the  two  were  taken  for  the 
same  by  Thunberg  and  Linngeus,  who  called  them  both 
R.  vernix. 

Our  northern  fox-grape,  Yitis  Labrusca,  is  wholly 
confined  to  the  Atlantic  States,  except  that  it  reap- 
pears in  Japan  and  that  region. 

The  original  Wistaria  is  a  woody  leguminous 
climber  with  showy  blossoms,  native  to  the  middle 
Atlantic  States ;  the  other  species,  which  we  so  much 
prize  in  cultivation,  W.  Sinensis,  is  from  China,  as  its 
name  denotes,  or  perhaps  only  from  Japan,  where  it  is 
certainly  indigenous. 

Our  yellow-wood  (Cladrastis)  inhabits  a  very  lim- 
ited district  on  the  western  slope  of  the  Alleghanies. 
Its  only  and  very  near  relative,  Maackia,  is  confined 
to  Mantchooria. 

The  Hydrangeas  have  some  species  in  our  Alle- 
ghany region :  all  the  rest  belong  to  the  Chino- Japan- 
ese region  and  its  continuation  westward.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  Philadelphus,  except  that  there  are  one 

*  The  tabulated  list  referred  to  was  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the 
oflficial  edition  of  this  discourse,  but  is  here  omitted. 


222  DARWINIANA. 

or  two  mostly  very  similar  species  in  California  and 
Oregon. 

Our  May-flower  (Epigsea)  and  onr  creeping  snow- 
berry,  otherwise  peculiar  to  Atlantic  Nortli  America, 
recur  in  Japan. 

Our  blue  cohosb  (Caulopliyllum)  is  confined  to  the 
woods  of  the  Atlantic  States,  but  has  lately  been  dis- 
covered in  Japan.  A  peculiar  relative  of  it,  Diphyl- 
leia,  confined  to  the  higher  Alleghanies,  is  also  repeated 
in  Japan,  with  a  slight  difference,  so  that  it  may  barely 
be  distinguished  as  another  species.  Another  relative 
is  our  twin-leaf  (Jeffersonia)  of  the  Alleghany  region 
alone :  a  second  species  has  lately  turned  np  in  Man- 
tchooria.  A  relative  of  this  is  Podophyllmn,  our  man- 
drake, a  common  inhabitant  of  the  Atlantic  United 
States,  but  found  nowhere  else.  There  is  one  other 
species  of  it,  and  that  is  in  the  Himalayas.  Here  are 
four  most  peculiar  genera  of  one  family,  each  of  a 
single  species  in  the  Atlantic  United  States,  which  are 
duplicated  on  the  other  side  of  the  world,  either  in 
identical  or  almost  identical  species,  or  in  an  analogous 
species,  while  nothing  else  of  the  kind  is  known  in  any 
other  part  of  the  world. 

I  ought  not  to  omit  ginseng,  the  root  so  prized  by 
the  Chinese,  which  they  obtained  from  their  northern 
provinces  and  Mantchooria,  and  which  is  now  known 
to  inhabit  Corea  and  J^brthern  Japan.  The  Jesuit 
Fathers  identified  the  plant  in  Canada  and  the  Atlan- 
tic States,  brought  over  the  Chinese  name  by  which  we 
know  it,  and  established  the  trade  in  it,  which  was  for 
many  years  most  profitable.  The  exportation  of  gin- 
seng to  China  probably  has  not  yet  entirely'  ceased. 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  223 

Whether  the  Asiatic  and  the  Atlantic  American  gin- 
sengs are  to  be  regarded  as  of  the  same  species  or  not 
is  somewhat  uncertain,  but  thej  are  hardly,  if  at  all, 
distinguishabl  e. 

There  is  a  shrub,  Elliottia,  which  is  so  rare  and  local 
that  it  is  known  only  at  two  stations  on  the  Savannah 
Kiver  in  Georgia.  It  is  of  peculiar  structure,  and  was 
without  near  relative  until  one  was  lately  discovered 
in  Japan  (Tripetaleia),  so  like  it  as  hardly  to  be  dis- 
tinguishable except  by  having  the  parts  of  the  blossom 
in  threes  instead  of  fours — a  difference  not  uncommon 
in  the  same  genus,  or  even  in  the  same  species. 

Suppose  Elliottia  had  happened  to  be  collected  only 
once,  a  good  while  ago,  and  all  knowledge  of  the  lim- 
ited and  obscure  locality  were  lost;  and  meanwhile 
the  Japanese  form  came  to  be  known.  Such  a  case 
would  be  parallel  with  an  actual  one.  A  specimen  of 
a  peculiar  plant  (Shortia  galacifolia)  was  detected  in 
the  herbarium  of  the  elder  Michaux,  who  collected  it 
(as  his  autograph  ticket  shows)  somewhere  in  the  high 
Alleghany  Mountains,  more  than  eighty  years  ago. 
1^0  one  has  seen  the  living  plant  since  or  knows 
where  to  find  it,  if  haply  it  still  flourishes  in  some 
secluded  spot.  At  length  it  is  found  in  Japan ;  and 
I  had  the  satisfaction  of  making  the  identification.* 
A  relative  is  also  known  in  Japan ;  and  a  less  near  one 
has  just  been  detected  in  Thibet. 

Whether  the  Japanese  and  the  Alleghanian  plants 
are  exactly  the  same  or  not,  it  needs  complete  speci- 
mens of  the  two  to  settle.     So  far  as  we  know,  they 

^American  Journal  of  Science,  1867,  p.  402;    "Proceedings   of 
American  Academy,"  vol.  viii.,  p.  244. 


224:  DARWINIANA. 

are  just  alike ;  and,  even  if  some  difference  were  dis- 
cerned between  them,  it  would  not  appreciably  alter 
the  question  as  to  how  such  a  result  came  to  pass. 
Each  and  every  one  of  the  analogous  cases  I  have  been 
detailing — and  very  many  more  could  be  mentioned — 
raises  the  same  question,  and  would  be  satisfied  with 
the  same  answer. 

These  singular  relations  attracted  my  curiosity 
early  in  the  course  of  mj  botanical  studies,  when  com- 
paratively few  of  them  were  known,  and  my  serious 
attention  in  later  years,  when  I  had  numerous  and  new 
Japanese  plants  to  study  in  the  collections  made,  by 
Messrs.  Williams  and  Morrow,  during  Commodore 
Perry's  visit  in  1853,  and  especially,  by  Mr.  Charles 
Wright,  of  Commodore  Kodgers's  expedition  in  1855. 
I  then  discussed  this  subject  somewhat  fully,  and  tabu- 
lated the  facts  within  my  reach.^ 

This  was  before  Heer  had  developed  the  rich  fossil 
botany  of  the  arctic  zone,  before  the  immense  antiquity 
of  existing  species  of  plants  was  recognized,  and  before 
the  publication  of  Darwin's  now  famous  volume  on 
the  "  Origin  of  Species  "  had  introduced  and  familiar- 
ized the  scientific  world  with  those  now  current  ideas 
respecting  the  history  and  vicissitudes  of  species  with 
which  I  attempted  to  deal  in  a  moderate  and  feeble 
way. 

My  speculation  was  based  upon  the  former  glacia- 
tion  of  the  northern  temperate  zone,  and  the  inference 
of  a  warmer  period  preceding  and  perhaps  following. 
I  considered  that  our  own  present  vegetation,  or  its 
proximate  ancestry,  must  have  occupied  the  arctic  and 

^  "  Memoirs  of  American  Academy,"  vol.  vi.,  pp.  377-458  (1859). 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  225 

subarctic  regions  in  pliocene  times,  and  that  it  had 
been  gradually  pushed  southward  as  the  temperature 
lowered  and  the  glaciation  advanced,  even  beyond  its 
present  habitation ;  that  plants  of  the  same  stock  and 
kindred,  probably  ranging  round  the  arctic  zone  as  the 
present  arctic  species  do,  made  their  forced  migration 
southward  upon  widely  different  longitudes,  and  re- 
ceded more  or  less  as  the  climate  grew  warmer ;  that 
the  general  difference  of  climate  which  marks  the  east- 
ern and  the  western  sides  of  the  continents — the  one 
extreme,  the  other  mean — was  doubtless  even  then 
established,  so  that  the  same  species  and  the  same  sorts 
of  species  would  be  likely  to  secure  and  retain  foothold 
in  the  similar  climates  of  Japan  and  the  Atlantic 
United  States,  but  not  in  intermediate  regions  of 
different  distribution  of  heat  and  moisture ;  so  that 
different  species  of  the  same  genus,  as  in  Torreya,  or 
different  genera  of  the  same  group,  as  redwood,  Taxo- 
dium,  and  Glyptostrobus,  or  different  associations  of. 
forest-trees,  might  establish  themselves  each  in  the 
region  best  suited  to  the  particular  requirements, 
while  they  would  fail  to  do  so  in  any  other.  These 
views  implied  that  the  sources  of  our  actual  vegetation 
and  the  explanation  of  these  peculiarities  were  to  be 
sought  in,  and  presupposed,  an  ancestry  in  pliocene  or 
earlier  times,  occupying  the  higher  northern  regions. 
And  it  was  thought  that  the  occurrence  of  peculiar 
IN^orth  American  genera  in  Europe  in  the  Tertiary 
period  (such  as  Taxodium,  Carya,  Liquidambar,  sassa- 
fras, ISTegundo,  etc.)  might  be  best  explained  on  the  as- 
sumption of  early  interchange  and  diffusion  through 
J^orth  Asia,  rather  than  by  that  of  the  fabled  Atlantis. 


226  DARWmiAN-A. 

Tlie  hypothesis  supposed  a  gradual  modification  of 
species  in  different  directions  under  altering  conditions, 
at  least  to  the  extent  of  producing  varieties,  sub-spe- 
cies, and  representative  species,  as  they  may  be  various- 
ly regarded ;  likewise  the  single  and  local  origination 
of  each  type,  which  is  now  almost  universally  taken  for 
granted. 

The  remarkable  facts  in  regard  to  the  Eastern 
American  and  Asiatic  floras  which  these  speculations 
were  to  explain  have  since  increased  in  number,  espe- 
cially through  the  admirable  collections  of  Dr.  Maxi- 
mowicz  in  Japan  and  adjacent  countries,  and  the  criti- 
cal comparisons  he  has  made  and  is  still  engaged  upon. 

I  am  bound  to  state  that,  in  a  recent  general  work  ^ 
by  a  distinguished  European  botanist.  Prof.  Grisebach, 
of  Gottingen,  these  facts  have  been  emptied  of  all 
special  significance,  and  the  relations  between  the 
Japanese  and  the  Atlantic  United  States  flora  declared 
to  be  no  more  intimate  than  might  be  expected  from 
the  situation,  climate,  and  present  opportunity  of  in- 
terchange. This  extraordinary  conclusion  is  reached 
by  regarding  as  distinct  species  all  the  plants  common 
to  both  countries  between  which  any  differences  have 
been  discerned,  although  such  differences  would  proba- 
bly count  for  little  if  the  two  inhabited  the  same  coun- 
.try,  thus  transferring  many  of  my  list  of  identical  to 
that  of  representative  species;  and  then  by  simply 
eliminating  from  consideration  the  whole  array  of  rep- 
resentative species,  i.  e.,  all  cases  in  which  the  Jap- 
anese and  the  American  plant  are  not  exactly  alike. 

^  "  Die  Vegetation  der  Erde  nach  ihrer  klimatischen  Anordnung," 
1871. 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  227 

As  if,  \)j  pronouncing  tlie  cabalistic  word  sjyecies,  the 
question  were  settled,  or  ratlier  the  greater  part  of  it 
remanded  out  of  the  domain  of  science ;  as  if,  while 
complete  identity  of  forms  implied  community  of  ori- 
gin, anything  short  of  it  carried  no  presumption  of 
the  kind ;  so  leaving  all  these  singular  duplicates  to 
be  wondered  at,  indeed,  but  wholly  beyond  the  reach 
of  inquiry. 

ITow,  the  only  known  cause  of  such  likeness  is 
inheritance;  and  as  all  transmission  of  likeness  is 
with  some  difference  in  individuals,  and  as  changed 
conditions  have  resulted,  as  is  well  known,  in  very 
considerable  differences,  it  seems  to  me  that,  if  the 
high  antiquity  of  our  actual  vegetation  could  be  ren- 
dered probable,  not  to  say  certain,  and  the  former  habi- 
tation of  any  of  our  species  or  of  very  near  relatives 
of  them  in  high  northern  regions  could  be  ascertained, 
my  whole  case  would  be  made  out.  The  needful  facts, 
of  which  I  was  ignorant  when  my  essay  was  pub- 
lished, have  now  been  for  some  years  made  known — 
thanks,  mainly,  to  the  researches  of  Heer  upon  ample 
collections  of  arctic  fossil  plants.  These  are  con- 
firmed and  extended  by  new  investigations,  by  Heer 
and  Lesquereux,  the  results  of  which  have  been  indi- 
cated to  me  by  the  latter.^ 

The  Taxodium,  which  everywhere  abounds  in  the 

^  Reference  should  also  be  made  to  the  extensive  researches  of  Xew- 
berry  upon  the  tertiary  and  cretaceous  floras  of  the  Western  United 
States.  See  especially  Prof.  Newberry's  paper  in  the  Boston  Jour- 
nal of  Natural  History^  vol.  vii.,  No.  4,  describing  fossil  plants  of  Yan- 
couver's  Island,  etc. ;  his  '^  Notes  on  the  Later  Extinct  Floras  of 
North  America,"  etc.,  in  "Annals  of  the  Lyceum  of  Natural  History," 
vol.  ix.,  April,  1868;  "Report  on  the  Cretaceous  and  Tertiary  Plants 


228  DARWINIANA. 

miocene  formations  in  Enrope,  lias  been  specifically 
identified,  first  by  Goeppert,  then  by  Heer,  with  onr 
common  cypress  of  the  Southern  States.  It  has  been 
found  fossil  in  Spitzbergen,  Greenland,  and  Alaska — 
in  the  latter  country  alono^  with  the  remains  of  anoth- 
er  form,  distinguishable,  but  very  like  the  common 

'  species ;  and  this  has  been  identified  by  Lesquereux 
in  the  miocene  of  the  Eocky  Mountains.  So  there 
is  one  species  of  tree  which  has  come  down  essentially 
unchanged  from  the  Tertiary  period,  which  for  a  long 
while  inhabited  both  Europe  and  IN^orth  America,  and 
also,  at  some  part  of  the  period,  the  region  which  geo- 
graphically connects  the  two  (once  doubtless  much 
more  closely  than  now),  but  which  has  survived  only 
in  the  Atlantic  United  States  and  Mexico. 

The  same  Sequoia  which  abounds  in  the  same  mio  - 

■  cene  formations  in  ITorthern  Europe  has  been  abun- 
dantly found  in  those  of  Iceland,  Spitzbergen,  Green- 
land, Mackenzie  Eiver,  and  Alaska.  It  is  named  S. 
Langsdorfii^  but  is  pronounced  to  be  veiy  much  like 
8.  semj^ervirens^  our  living  redwood  of  the  Calif  ornian 
coast,  and  to  be  the  ancient  representative  of  it.  Fossil 
specimens  of  a  similar,  if  not  the  same,  species  have 
recently  been  detected  in  the  Rocky  Mountains  by 
Hayden,  and  determined  by  our  eminent  palasontologi- 
cal  botanist,  Lesquereux  ;  and  he  assures  me  that  he  has 

collected  in  Raynolds  and  Hayden's  Yellowstone  and  Missouri  Explor- 
ing Expedition,  1859-1860,"  published  in  1869;  and  an  interesting 
article  entitled  "The  Ancient  Lakes  of  Western  America,  their  De- 
posits and  Drainage,"  published  in  The  American  Naturalist^  January, 
1871. 

The  only  document  I  was  able  to  consult  was  Lesquereux's  "  Re- 
port on  the  Fossil  Plants,"  in  Hayden's  report  of  1872. 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  229 

the  common  redwood  itself  from  Oregon  in  a  depos- 
it of  tertiary  age.  Anotlier  Sequoia  {S.  Sternbergii)^ 
discovered  in  miocene  deposits  in  Greenland,  is  pro- 
nounced to  be  the  representative  of  S.  gigantea,  the 
big  tree  of  the  Californian  Sierra.  If  the  Taxodium 
of  the  tertiary  time  in  Europe  and  throughout  the 
arctic  regions  is  the  ancestor  of  our  present  bald  cy- 
press— which  is  assumed  in  regarding  them  as  specifi- 
cally identical — then  I  think  we  may,  with  our  present 
light,  fairly  assume  that  the  two  redwoods  of  Califor- 
nia are  the  direct  or  collateral  descendants  of  the  two 
ancient  species  which  so  closely  resemble  them. 

The  forests  of  the  arctic  zone  in  tertiary  times 
contained  at  least  three  other  species  of  Sequoia,  as 
determined  by  their  remains,  one  of  which,  from 
Spitzbergen,  also  much  resembles  the  common  red- 
wood of  California.  Another,  "  which  appears  to 
have  been  the  commonest  coniferous  tree  on  Disco," 
was  common  in  England  and  some  other  parts  of  Eu- 
rope. So  the  Sequoias,  now  remarkable  for  their  re- 
stricted station  and  numbers,  as  w^ell  as  for  their  ex- 
traordinary size,  are  of  an  ancient  stock ;  their  ances- 
tors and  kindred  formed  a  large  part  of  the  forests 
which  flourished  throughout  the  polar  regions,  now 
desolate  and  ice-clad,  and  which  extended  into  low 
latitudes  in.  Europe.  On  this  continent  one  species, 
at  least,  had  reached  to  the  vicinity  of  its  present 
habitat  before  the  glaciation  of  the  region.  Among 
the  fossil  specimens  already  found  in  California,  but 
which  our  trustworthy  pal^eontological  botanist  has 
not  yet  had  time  to  examine,  we  may  expect  to  find 
evidence  of  the  early  arrival  of  these  two  redwoods 


230  DARWINIANA. 

upon  tlie  ground  whicli  tliey  now,  after  mncli  vicissi- 
tude, scantily  occupy. 

Differences  of  climate,  or  circumstances  of  migra- 
tion, or  both,  must  have  determined  the  survival  of 
Sequoia  uj)on  the  Pacific,  and  of  Taxodium  upon  the 
Atlantic  coast.  And  still  the  redwoods  will  not  stand 
in  the  east,  nor  could  our  Taxodium  find  a  congenial 
station  in  California.  Both  have  probably  had  their 
opportunity  in  the  olden  time,  and  failed. 

As  to  the  remaining  near  relative  of  Sequoia,  the 
Chinese  Glyptostrobus,  a  species  of  it,  and  its  verita- 
ble representative,  was  contemporaneous  with  Sequoia 
and  Taxodium,  not  only  in  temperate  Europe,  but 
throuo-hout  the  arctic  reo^ions  from  Greenland  to 
Alaska.  According  to  Newberry,  it  was  abundantly 
represented  in  the  miocene  flora  of  the  temperate  zone 
of  our  own  continent,  from  I^ebraska  to  the  Pacific. 

Yery  similar  would  seem  to  have  been  the  fate  of 
a  more  familiar  gymnospermous  tree,  the  Gingko  or 
Salisburia.  It  is  now  indigenous  to  Japan  only.  Its 
ancestor,  as  we  may  fairly  call  it — since,  according  to 
Heer,  "  it  corresponds  so  entirely  with  the  living  spe- 
cies that  it  can  scarcely  be  separated  from  it " — once 
inhabited  ]N"orthern  Europe  and  the  whole  arctic  re- 
gion round  to  Alaska,  and  had  even  a  representative 
farther  south,  in  our  Rocky  Mountain  district.  For 
some  reason,  this  and  Glyptostrobus  survive  only  on 
the  shores  of  Eastern  Asia. 

Libocedrus,  on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  have 
cast  in  its  lot  with  the  Sequoias.  Two  species,  ac- 
cording to  Heer,  were  with  them  in  Spitzbergen.  Z. 
decurrenSy  the  incense  cedar,  is  one  of  the  noblest 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY,  231 

associates  of  tlie  present  redwoods.  But  all  the  rest 
are  in  the  southern  hemisphere,  two  at  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  Andes,  two  in  the  South-Sea  Islands. 
It  is  only  by  bold  and  far-reaching  suppositions  that 
they  can  be  geographically  associated. 

The  genealogy  of  the  Torreyas  is  still  wholly  ob- 
scure ;  yet  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  yew-like  trees, 
named  Taxites,  which  flourished  with  the  Sequoias  in 
the  tertiary  arctic  forests,  are  the  remote  ancestors  of 
the  three  species  of  Torreya,  now  severally  in  Florida, 
in  California,  and  in  Japan. 

As  to  the  pines  and  firs,  these  were  more  numer- 
ously associated  with  the  ancient  Sequoias  of  the 
polar  forests  than  with  their  present  representatives, 
but  in  different  species,  apparently  more  like  those 
of  Eastern  than  of  Western  Xorth  Amenca.  They 
must  have  encircled  the  polar  zone  then,  as  they  en- 
circle the  present  temperate  zone  now. 

I  must  refrain  from  all  enumeration  of  the  angio- 
spermous  or  ordinary  deciduous  trees  and  shrubs, 
w^hich  are  now  known,  by  their  fossil  remains,  to 
have  flourished  throughout  the  polar  regions  when 
Greenland  better  deserved  its  name  and  enjoyed  the 
present  climate  of  New  England  and  l!^ew  Jersey. 
Then  Greenland  and  the  rest  of  the  north  abounded 
with  oaks,  representing  the  several  groups  of  species 
w^hich  now  inhabit  both  onr  Eastern  and  Western  for- 
est districts ;  several  poplars,  one  very  like  om*  balsam 
poplar  or  balm-of-Gilead  tree ;  more  beeches  than 
there  are  now,  a  hornbeam,  and  a  hop-hornbeam, 
some  birches,  a  persimmon,  and  a  planer-tree,  near 
representatives  of  those  of  the  Old  World,  at  least  of 


232  DAEWINIANA. 

Asia,  as  well  as  of  Atlantic  ITortli  America,  but  all 
wanting  in  California ;  one  Jnglans  like  the  walnut 
of  the  Old  World,  and  another  Ifke  our  black  walnut ; 
two  or  three  grapevines,  one  near  our  Southern  fox 
graj)e  or  muscadine,  another  near  our  ^N'orthern  frost- 
grape  ;  a  Tilia,  very  like  ourbasswood  of  the  Atlan- 
tic States  only ;  a  Liquidambar ;  a  magnolia,  which 
recalls  our  M.  gi'andiiiora ;  a  Liriodendron,  sole  repre- 
sentative of  our  tulip-tree ;  and  a  sassafras,  very  like 
the  living  tree. 

Most  of  these,  it  will  be  noticed,  have  their  near- 
est or  their  only  living  representatives  in  the  Atlantic 
States,  and  when  elsewhere,  mainly  in  Eastern  Asia. 
Several  of  them,  or  of  species  like  them,  have  been 
detected  in  our  tertiary  deposits,  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, by  dewberry  and  Lesquereux.  Herbaceous 
plants,  as  it  happens,  are  rarely  preserved  in  a  fossil 
state,  else  they  would  probably  supply  additional  tes- 
timony to  the  antiquity  of  our  existing  vegetation,  its 
wide  diffusion  over  the  northern  and  now  frigid  zone, 
and  its. enforced  migration  under  changes  of  climate.^ 

Concluding,  then,  as  we  must,  that  our  existing 
vegetation  is  a  continuation  of  that  of  the  tertiary 

^  There  is,  at  least,  one  instance  so  opportune  to  the  present  argu- 
ment that  it  should  not  pass  unnoticed,  although  I  had  overlooked  the 
record  until  now.  Onoclea  sensibilis  is  a  fern  peculiar  to  the  Atlantic 
United  States  (where  it  is  common  and  wide-spread)  and  to  Japan. 
Prof.  Newberry  identified  it  several  years  ago  in  a  collection,  obtained 
by  Dr.  Hayden,  of  miocene  fossil  plants  of  Dakota  Territory,  which  is 
far  beyond  it  present  habitat.  He  moreover  regards  it  as  probably 
identical  with  a  fossil  specimen  "  described  by  the  late  Prof  E.  Forbes, 
under  the  name  of  Filicites  Jlcbridicus,  and  obtained  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  from  the  island  of  Mull." 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  233 

period,  may  we  suppose  that  it  absolutely  originated 
then?  Evidently  not.  The  preceding  Cretaceous  pe- 
riod has  furnished  to  Carruthers  in  Europe  a  fossil 
f riiit  like  that  of  the  Sequoia  gigantea  of  the  famous 
groves,  associated  with  pines  of  the  same  character  as 
those  that  accompany  the  present  tree ;  has  furnished 
to  Heer,  from  Greenland,  two  more  Sequoias,  one  of 
them  identical  with  a  tertiary  species,  and  one  nearly 
allied  to  Sequoia  Langsdorfii^  which  in  turn  is  a  prob- 
able ancestor  of  the  common  Californian  redwood ; 
has  furnished  to  ITewberry  and  Lesquereux  in  IS^orth 
America  the  remains  of  another  ancient  Sequoia, .  a 
Glyptostrobus,  a  Liquidambar  which  well  represents  our 
sweet-gum-tree,  oaks  analogous  to  living  ones,  leaves 
of  a  plane-tree,  which  are  also  in  the  Tertiary,  and  are 
scarcely  distinguishable  from  our  own  Platanus  occi- 
dentalism of  a  magnolia  and  a  tulip-tree,  and  "of  a  sas- 
safras undistinguishable  from  our  living  species."  I 
need  not  continue  the  enumeration.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that  the  facts  justifiy  the  conclusion  which  Lesquereux 
— a  scrupulous  investigator — has  already  announced  : 
that  "  the  essential  tj^es  of  om*  actual  flora  are  marked 
in  the  Cretaceous  period,  and  have  come  to  us  after 
passing,  without  notable  changes,  through  the  Tertiary 
formations  of  our  continent." 

According  to  these  views,  as  regards  plants  at  least, 
the  adaptation  to  successive  times  and  changed  condi- 
tions has  been  maintained,  not  by  absolute  renewals, 
but  by  gradual  modifications.  I,  for  one,  cannot  doubt 
that  the  present  existing  species  are  the  lineal  success- 
ors of  those  that  garnished  the  earth  in  the  old  time 
before  them,  and  that  they  were  as  well  adapted  to 


23i  BARWINIANA. 

their  surroundings  then,  as  those  which  flourish  and 
bloom  around  us  are  to  their  conditions  now.  Order 
and  exquisite  adaptation  did  not  wait  for  man's  coming, 
nor  were  they  ever  stereotyped.  Organic  I^ature — by 
which  I  mean  the  system  and  totality  of  living  things, 
and  their  adaptation  to  each  other  and  to  the  world — 
with  all  its  apparent  and  indeed  real  stability,  should 
be  likened,  not  to  the  ocean,  which  varies  only  by  tidal 
oscillations  from  a  fixed  level  to  which  it  is  always 
returning,  but  rather  to  a  river,  so  vast  that  we  can 
neither  discern  its  shores  nor  reach  its  sources,  whose 
onward  flow  is  not  less  actual  because  too  slow  to  be 
observed  by  the  ejphemercB  whi-ch  hover  over  its  surface, 
or  are  borne  upon  its  bosom. 

Such  ideas  as  these,  though  still  repugnant  to  some, 
and  not  long  since  to  many,  have  so  possessed  the 
minds  of  the  naturalists  of  the  present  day  that  hardly 
a  discourse  can  be  pronounced  or  an  investigation  pros- 
ecuted without  reference  to  them.  I  suppose  that  the 
views  here  taken  are  little,  if  at  all,  in  advance  of  the 
average  scientific  mind  of  the  day.  I  cannot  regard 
them  as  less  noble  than  those  which  they  are  suc- 
ceeding. An  able  philosophical  writer,  Mss  Frances 
Power  Cobbe,  has  recently  and  truthfully  said : ' 

"It  is  a  singular  fact  that,  when  we  can  find  out  how  any- 
thing is  done,  our  first  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  God  did  not 
do  it.  No  matter  how  wonderful,  how  beautiful,  how  intimate- 
ly complex  and  delicate  has  been  the  machinery  which  has 
worked,  perhaps  for  centuries,  perhaps  for  millions  of  ages,  to 
bring  about  some  beneficent  result,  if  we  can  but  catch  a  glimpse 
of  the  wheels  its  divine  character  disappears." 

*  "Darwinism  in  Morals,"  in  Theological  Review,  April,  1871. 


SEQUOIA  AND  ITS  HISTORY.  235 

I  agree  with  the  writer  that  this  first  conclusion  is 
premature  and  unworthy  —  I  will  add,  deplorable. 
Through  what  faults  or  infirmities  of  dogmatism  on 
the  one  hand,  and  skepticism  on  the  other,  it  came  to 
be  so  thought,  we  need  not  here  consider.  Let  us 
hope,  and  I  confidently  expect,  that  it  is  not  to  last ; 
that  the  religious  faith  which  survived  without  a  shock 
the  notion  of  the  fixity  of  the  earth  itself  may  equally 
outlast  the  notion  of  the  fixity  of  the  species  which 
inhabit  it ;  that,  in  the  future  even  more  than  in  the 
past,  faith  in  an  order^  which  is  the  basis  of  science, 
will  not — as  it  cannot  reasonably — be  dissevered  from 
faith  in  an  Ordainer^  which  is  the  basis  of  religion. 


YI. 


THE   ATTITUDE   OF   WORKING   NATURALISTS   TOWARD    DAR- 
WINISM.^ 

(The  Nation,  October  16,  1873.) 

That  homely  adage,  "  "What  is  one  man's  meat  is 
another  man's  poison,"  comes  to  mind  when  we  con- 
sider with  what  different  eyes  different  naturalists  look 
upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  derivative  origin  of  actual 
specific  forms,  since  Mr.  Darwin  gave  it  vogue  and 

^  "  Histoire  des  Sciences  et  des  Sevants  depuis  deux  Siecles,  suivie 
d'autres  etudes  sur  des  sujets  scientifiques,  en  particulier  sur  la  Selec- 
tion dans  I'Espece  Humaine,  par  Alphonse  De  Candolle."  Geneve :  H. 
Georg.     1873. 

"  Addresses  of  George  Bentliam,  President,  read  at  the  anniversary 
meetings  of  the  Linnean  Society,  1862-1873." 

"  Notes  on  the  Classification,  History,  and  Geographical  Distribution 
of  Compositse.  By  George  Bentham."  Separate  issue  from  the  Journal 
of  the  Linnean  Society.     Vol,  XIII.     London.     1873. 

"  On  Palceontological  Evidence  of  Gradual  Modification  of  Animal 
Forms,  read  at  the  Royal  Institution  of  Great  Britain,  April  25,  1873. 
by  Prof  W.  H.  Flower."     {Journal  of  the  Royal  Institution^  pp.  11.) 

"The  Distribution  and  Migration  of  Birds.  Memoir  presented  to 
the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  January,  1865,  abstracted  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Science  and  the  Arts.  1866,  etc.  By  Spencer 
F.  Baird." 

"The  Story  of  the  Earth  and  Man.  By  J.  W.  Dawson,  LL.D., 
F.  R.  S.,  F.  G.  S.,  Principal  and  Vice-Chancellor  of  McGill  University, 
Montreal.  London:  Hodder  &  Stoughton;  New  York:  Harper  & 
Brothers.     1873.     Pp.  403,  12mo. 


ATTITUDE  OF  WORKING  NATURALISTS.  237 

vigor  and  a  raison  Wetre  for  tlie  present  day.  This 
latter  lie  did,  not  only  by  bringing  forward  a  vera 
causa  in  tlie  survival  of  the  fittest  nnder  changing  eir- 
cnmstances — about  which  the  question  among  natural- 
ists mainly  is  how  much  it  will  explain,  some  allowing 
it  a  restricted,  others  an  unlimited  operation — but  also 
by  showing  that  the  theory  may  be  made  to  do  work, 
may  shape  and  direct  investigations,  the  results  of 
which  must  in  time  tell  us  whether  the  theory  is  likely 
to  hold  good  or  not.  If  the  hypothesis  of  natural 
selection  and  the  things  thereto  appertaining  had  not 
been  capable  of  being  put  to  useful  work,  although, 
like  the  "  Yestiges  of  the  J^atural  History  of  Creation," 
it  might  have  made  no  little  noise  in  the  world,  it 
would  hardly  have  engaged  the  attention  of  working 
natm-alists  as  it  has  done.  We  have  no  idea  even  of 
opening  the  question  as  to  what  work  the  Darwinian 
theory  has  incited,  and  in  what  way  the  work  done  has 
reacted  upon  the  theory ;  and  least  of  all  do  we  like  to 
meddle  with  the  polemical  literature  of  the  subject, 
already  so  voluminous  that  the  German  bibliographers 
and  booksellers  make  a  separate  class  of  it.  But  two 
or  three  treatises  before  us,  of  a  minor  or  incidental 
sort,  suggest  a  remark  or  two  upon  the  attitude  of  mind 
toward  evolutionary  theories  taken  by  some  of  the 
working  naturalists. 

Mr.  Darwin's  own  expectation,  that  his  new  pre- 
sentation of  the  s,ubject  would  have  little  or  no  effect 
upon  those  who  had  already  reached  middle-age,  has 
— out  of  Paris — not  been  fulfilled.  There  are,  indeed, 
one  or  two  who  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  denounce 
the  theory  as  morally  dangerous,  as  well  as  scientifi- 
11 


238  DAEWimAJSTA. 

cally  baseless ;  a  recent  instance  of  tlie  sort  we  may 
have  to  consider  fiirther  on.  Others,  like  the  youth 
at  the  river's  bank,  have  been  waiting  in  confident 
expectation  of  seeing  the  current  run  itself  dry.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  notable  proportion  of  the  more  active- 
minded  naturalists  had  already  come  to  doubt  the  re- 
ceived doctrine  of  the  entire  fixity  of  species,  and 
still  more  that  of  their  independent  and  supernatural 
origination.  While  their  systematic  work  all  proceed- 
ed implicitly  upon  the  hypothesis  of  the  independence 
and  entire  permanence  of  species,  they  were  perceiv- 
ing more  or  less  clearly  that  the  whole  question  was 
inevitably  to  be  mooted  again,  and  so  were  prepared 
to  give  the  alternative  hypothesis  a  dispassionate  con- 
sideration. The  veteran  Lyell  set  an  early  example, 
and,  on  a  reconsideration  of  the  whole  question,  wrote 
anew  his  famous  chapter  and  reversed  his  former  and 
weighty  opinion.  Owen,  still  earlier,  signified  his  ad- 
hesion to  the  doctrine  of  derivation  in  some  form,  but 
apparently  upon  general,  speculative  grounds ;  for  he 
repudiated  natural  selection,  and  offered  no  other 
natural  solution  of  the  mystery  of  the  orderly  incom- 
ing of  cognate  forms.  As  examples  of  the  effect  of 
Darwin's  "  Origin  of  Species"  upon  the  minds  of  nat- 
uralists who  are  no  longer  young,  and  whose  pre- 
possessions, even  more  than  Lyell' s,  were  likely  to  bias 
them  against  the  new  doctrine,  two  from  the  botanical 
side  are  brought  to  our  notice  through  recent  miscel- 
laneous writings  which  are  now  before  us.^ 

^  Since  this  article  was  in  type,  noteworthy  examples  of  appreciative 
scientific  judgment  of  the  derivative  hjrpothesis  have  come  to  hand :  1. 
In  the  opening  address  to  the  Geological  Section  of  the  British  Associa- 


ATTITUDE  OF   WORKING  NATURALISTS,   239 

Before  tlie  publication  of  Darwin's  first  volume, 
M.  Alplionse  de  Candolle  had  summed  up  the  result 
of  his  studies  in  this  regard,  in  the  final  chapter  of  his 
classical  "  Geographic  Botanique  Baisonnee,"  in  the 
conclusion,  that  existing  vegetation  must  be  regarded 
as  the  continuation,  through  many  geological  and 
geographical  changes,  of  the  anterior  vegetations  of 
the  world ;  and  that,  consequently,  the  present  distri- 
bution of  species  is  explicable  only  in  the  light  of  their 
geological  history.  He  surmised  that,  notwithstand- 
ing the  general  stability  of  forms,  certain  species  or 
quasi-species  might  have  originated  through  diversi- 
fication under  geographical  isolation.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  was  still  disposed  to  admit  that  even 
the  same  species  might  have  originated  independently 
in  two  or  more  different  regions  of  the  world ;  and  he 
declined,  as  unpractical  and  unavailing,  all  attempts 
to  apply  hypotheses  to  the  elucidation  of  the  origin 
of  species.  Soon  after  Darwin's  book  appeared,  De 
Candolle  had  occasion  to  study  systematically  a  large 
and  wide-spread  genus — that  of  the  oak.  Investigat- 
ing it  under  the  new  light  of  natural  selection,  he 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  existing  oaks  are  all 
descendants  of  earlier  forms,  and  that  no  clear  line 
can  be  drawn  between  the  diversification  which  has 


tion,  at  its  recent  meeting,  by  its  president,  the  veteran  Phillips,  perhaps 
the  oldest  surviving  geologist  after  Lyell ;  and,  2.  That  of  Prof.  All- 
man,  President  of  the  Biological  Section.  The  first  touches  the  subject 
briefly,  but  in  the  way  of  favorable  suggestion ;  the  second  is  a  full  and 
discriminating  exposition  of  the  reasons  which  seem  to  assure  at  least 
the  provisional  acceptance  of  the  hypothesis,  as  a  guide  in  all  biological 
studies,  "  a  key  to  the  order  and  hidden  forces  of  the  world  of  life." 


2-iO  BARWrniANA. 

resulted  in  species  and  that  which  is  exhibited  in  races 
and  minor  varieties. 

And  no^Y,  in  the  introductory  chapter  of  the  vol- 
imie  of  essays  before  us,  he  informs  us  that  the  idea 
which  pervades  them  all,  and  in  some  sort  connects 
very  diverse  topics,  is  that  of  considering  this  princi- 
ple of  selection.  Of  the  principle  itself,  he  remarks 
that  it  is  neither  a  theory  nor  an  hypothesis,  but  the 
expression  of  a  necessary  fact ;  that  to  deny  it  is  very 
much  like  denvins:  that  round  stones  will  roll  down- 
hill  faster  and  farther  than  flat  ones;  and  that  the 
question  of  the  present  day  in  natural  history  is  not 
whether  there  be  natural  selection,  or  even  whether 
forms  are  derived  from  other  forms,  but  to  compre- 
hend how,  in  what  proportions,  and  by  what  means 
hereditary  deviations  take  place,  and  in  what  ways  an 
inevitable  selection  takes  effect  upon  these.  In  two 
of  these  essays  natural  selection  is  directly  discussed 
in  its  application  to  the  human  race ;  the  larger  one 
dealing  ably  with  the  whole  subject,  and  with  results 
at  first  view  seemingly  in  a  great  degree  negative, 
but  yet  showing  that  the  supposed  ''  failure  of  natural 
selection  in  the  case  of  man  "  was  an  unwarrantable 
conclusion  from  too  limited  a  view  of  a  very  compli- 
cated question.  The  article  abounds  in  acute  and 
fertile  suggestions,  and  its  closing  chapter,  "on  the 
probable  future  of  the  human  species "  under  the 
laws  of  selection,  is  highly  interesting  and  noteworthy. 
The  other  and  shorter  essay  discusses  a  special  point, 
and  brings  out  a  corollary  of  the  law  of  heredity 
which  may  not  have  been  thought  o:^  before,  but 
which  is  perfectly  clear  as  soon  as  it  is  stated.     It  ex- 


ATTITUDE  OF  WORKING  NATURALISTS.    2il 

plains  at  once  wliy  contagious  or  epidemic  diseases  are 
most  fatal  at  their  first  appearance,  and  less  so  after- 
ward :  not  bj  tlie  dying  out  of  a  vinis — for,  when  the 
disease  reaches  a  new  population,  it  is  as  virulent  as 
ever  (as,  for  instance,  the  small-pox  among  the  In- 
dians)— but  by  the  selection  of  a  race  less  subject  to 
attack  through  the  destruction  of  those  that  were 
n'lore  so,  and  the  inheritance  of  the  comparative  immu- 
nity by  the  children  and  the  grandchildren  of  the  sur- 
vivors ;  and  how  this  immunity  itself,  causing  the 
particular  disease  to  become  rare,  paves  the  way  to  a 
return  of  the  original  fatality ;  for  the  mass  of  such 
population,  both  in  the  present  and  the  immediately 
preceding  generation,  not  having  been  exposed  to  the 
infection,  or  but  little  exposed,  has  not  undergone  se- 
lection, and  so  in  time  the  proportion  liable  to  attack, 
or  to  fatal  attack,  gets  to  be  as  large  as  ever.  The 
greater  the  fatality,  especially  in  the  population  under 
marriageable  age,  the  more  favorable  the  condition  of 
the  survivors ;  and,  by  the  law  of  heredity,  their  chil- 
dren should  share  in  the  immunity.  This  explanation 
of  the  cause,  or  of  one  cause,  of  the  return  of  pests  at 
intervals  no  less  applies  to  the  diminution  of  the  effi- 
cacy of  remedies,  and  of  preventive  means,  such  as 
vaccination.  When  Jenner  introduced  vaccination, 
the  small-pox  in  Europe  and  European  colonies  must 
have  lost  somewhat  of  its  primitive  intensity  by  the 
vigorous  weeding  out  of  the  more  susceptible  through 
many  generations.  Upon  the  residue,  vaccination  was 
almost  complete  protection,  and,  being  generally  prac- 
tised, small-pox  consequently  became  rare.  Selection 
thus  ceasing  to  operate,  a  population  arises  which  has 


242  DARWINIANA. 

not  been  exposed  to  tlie  contagion,  and  of  wliicli  a  con- 
siderable proportion,  under  the  common  law  of  ata- 
vism, comes  to  be  very  much  in  the  condition  of  a 
people  invaded  for  the  first  time  by  the  disease.  To 
these,  as  we  might  expect,  vaccination  would  prove  a 
less  safeguard  than  to  their  progenitors  three  or  four 
generations  before. 

Mr.  Bentham  is  a  veteran  systematic  botanist  of 
the  highest  rank  and  widest  knowledge.  He  had  not, 
BO  far  as  we  know,  touched  upon  questions  of  origina- 
tion in  the  ante-Darwinian  era.  The  dozen  of  presi- 
dential addresses  delivered  at  anniversary  meetings  of 
the  Linnean  Society,  from  his  assumption  of  the  chair 
in  the  year  1862  down  to  the  current  year — each  de- 
voted to  some  topic  of  interest — and  his  recent  "  Me- 
moir on  Composit^e,"  summing  up  the  general  results 
of  a  revision  of  an  order  to  which  a  full  tenth  of  all 
higher  plants  belong,  furnish  apt  examples  both  of 
cautious  criticism,  conditional  assent  (as  becomes  the 
inaugurator  of  the  quantification  of  the  predicate),  and 
of  fruitful  application  of  the  new  views  to  various 
problems  concerning  the  classification  and  geographi- 
cal distribution  of  plants.  In  his  hands  the  hypothe- 
sis is  turned  at  once  to  practical  use  as  an  instrument 
of  investigation,  as  a  means  of  interrogating  J^ature. 
In  the  result,  no  doubt  seems  to  be  left  upon  the  au- 
thor's mind  that  the  existing  species  of  plants  are  the 
result  of  the  diiferentiation  of  previous  species,  or  at 
least  that  the  derivative  hypothesis  is  to  be  adopted  as 
that  which  ofliers  the  most  natural,  if  not  the  only, 
explanation  of  the  problems  concerned.  Similar  con- 
clusions reached  in  this  country,  from  a  study  of  the 


ATTITUDE  OF   WORKING  NATURALISTS.    243 

relations  of  its  present  flora  witli  tliat  wliicli  in  earlier, 
ages  occupied  the  arctic  zone,  might  also  be  referred 
to.     (See  preceding  article.) 

An  excellent  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the  de- 
rivative hypothesis  is  practically  applied  in  these  days, 
by  a  zoologist,  is  before  lis  in  Prof.  Flower's  mod- 
est and  admirable  paper  on  the  Ungulata,  or  hoofed 
animals,  and  their  geological  history.  We  refer  to  it 
here,  not  so  much  for  the  conclusions  it  reaches  or 
suggests,  as  to  commend  the  clearness  and  the  impar- 
tiality of  the  handling,  and  the  sobriety  and  modera- 
tion of  the  deductions.  Confining  himself  "within 
the  region  of  the  known,  it  is  shown  that,  at  least  in 
one  group  of  animals,  the  facts  which  we  have  as  yet 
acquired  point  to  the  former  existence  of  various  inter- 
mediate forms,  so  numerous  that  they  go  far  to  dis- 
credit the  view  of  the  sudden  introduction  of  new 
species.  .  .  .  The  modern  forms  are  placed  along  lines 
which  converge  toward  a  common  centre."  The  gaps 
between  the  existing  forms  of  the  odd-toed  gi'oup  of 
ungulates  (of  which  horses,  rhinoceroses,  and  tapirs, 
are  the  principal  representatives)  are  mostly  bridged 
over  by  palaeontology,  and  somewhat  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  even-toed  group,  to  which  the  ruminants 
and  the  porcine  genus  belong.  "  Moreover,  the  lines 
of  both  groups  to  a  certain  extent  approximate,  but, 
within  the  limits  of  our  knowledge,  they  do  not  meet. 
.  .  .  Was  the  order  according  to  which  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  forms  seems  to  have  taken  place  since  the 
Eocene  then  entirely  changed,  or  did  it  continue  as  far 
back  as  the  period  when  these  lines  would  have  been 
gradually  fused  in  a  common  centre  ? " 


24:4:  DARWINIANA. 

Facts  like  these,  wliicli  suggest  grave  diversifica- 
tion under  long  lapse  of  time,  are  well  supplemented 
by  those  which  essentially  demonstrate  a  slighter 
diversification  of  many  species  over  a  wide  range  of 
space ;  whether  into  species  or  races  depends  partly 
upon  how  the  naturalist  uses  these  terms,  partly  upon 
the  extent  of  the  observations,  or  luck  in  getting  to- 
gether intermediate  forms.  The  researches  of  Prof. 
Baird  upon  the  birds  of  this  continent  afibrd  a  good 
illustration.  A  great  number  of  our  birds  which 
have  been,  and  must  needs  have  been,  regarded  as 
very  distinct  species,  each  mainly  with  its  own  geo- 
graphical area,  are  found  to  mingle  their  characters 
along  bordering  lines ;  and  the  same  kinds  of  differ- 
ences (of  coloration,  form,  or  other)  are  found  to  pre- 
vail through  the  species  of  each  region,  thus  impress- 
ing upon  them  a  geographical  facies.  Upon  a  sub- 
mergence of  the  continent,  reducing  these  several 
regions  to  islands  sufficiently  separated,  these  forms 
would  be  unquestioned  species. 

Considerations  such  as  these,  of  which  a  few  speci- 
mens have  now  been  adduced  (not  general  specula- 
tions, as  the  unscientific  are  apt  to  suppose),  and  trials 
of  the  new  views,  to  see  how  far  they  will  explain 
the  problems  or  collocate  the  facts  they  are  severally 
dealing  with,  are  what  have  mainly  influenced  work- 
ing naturalists  in  the  direction  of  the  provisional 
acceptance  of  the  derivative  hypothesis.  They  leave 
to  polemical  speculators  the  fruitless  discussion  of  the 
question  whether  all  species  came  from  one  or  two,  or 
more ;  they  are  trying  to  grasp  the  thing  by  the  near, 
not  by  the  farther  end,  and  to  ascertain,  first  of  all. 


ATTITUDE  OF  WORKING  NATURALISTS.    2J:5 

wlietlier  it  is  probable  or  provable  tliat  present  species 
are  descendants  of  former  ones  which  were  like  them, 
but  less  and  less  like  them  the  farther  back  we  go. 

And  it  is  worth  noting  that  they  all  seem  to  be 
utterly  unconscious  of  wrong-doing.  Their  repugnance 
to  novel  hypotheses  is  only  the  natural  and  healthy 
one.  A  chano-e  of  a  wonted  line  of  thouo^ht  is  not 
made  without  an  effort,  nor  need  be  made  without 
adequate  occasion.  Some  courage  was  required  of  the 
man  who  first  swallowed  an  oyster  from  its  shell ;  and 
of  most  of  ns  the  snail  would  still  demand  more.  As 
the  unaccustomed  food  proves  to  be  good  and  satis- 
fying, and  also  harmless,  we  may  come  to  like  it. 
That,  however,  which  many  good  and  eminent  natural- 
ists find  to  be  healthful  and  reasonable,  and  others 
innocuous,  a  few  still  regard  as  most  unreasonable  and 
harmful.  At  present,  we  call  to  mind  only  two  who 
not  only  hold  to  the  entire  fixity  of  species  as  an  axiom 
or  a  confirmed  principle,  but  also  as  a  dogma,  and  who 
maintain,  either  expressly  or  implicitly,  that  the  logi- 
cal antithesis  to  the  creation  of  species  as  they  are,  is 
not  by  law  (which  implies  intention),  but  by  chance. 
A  recent  book  by  one  of  these  naturalists,  or  rather,  by 
a  geologist  of  eminence,  the  "  Story  of  the  Earth  and 
Man,"  by  Dr.  Dawson,  is  now  before  us.  The  title  is 
too  near  that  of  Guyot's  "  Earth  and  Man,"  with  the 
publication  of  which  popular  volume  that  distinguished 
physical  naturalist  commenced  his  career  in  this  coun- 
try ;  and  such  catch-titles  are  a  sort  of  trade-mark. 
As  to  the  nature  and  merits  of  Dr.  Dawson's  work,  we 
have  left  ourselves  space  only  to  say :  1.  That  it  is 
addressed  ad  populum,  which  renders  it  rather  the 


246  DARWINIANA. 

more  than  less  amenable  to  the  criticisms  we  may  be 
disposed  to  make  upon  it.  2.  That  the  author  is  thor- 
oughly convinced  that  no  species  or  form  deserving 
the  name  was  ever  derived  from  another,  or  originated 
from  natural  causes ;  and  he  maintains  this  doctrine 
with  earnestness,  much  variety  of  argument  and  illus- 
tration, and  no  small  ability ;  so  that  he  may  be  taken 
as  a  representative  of  the  view  exactly  opposed  to  that 
which  is  favored  by  those  naturalists  whose  essays  we 
have  been  considering — to  whom,  indeed,  he  stands  in 
marked  contrast  in  spiiit  and  method,  being  greatly 
disposed  to  argue  the  question  from  the  remote  rather 
than  the  near  end.  3.  And  finally,  he  has  a  convic- 
tion that  the  evolutionary  doctrines  of  the  day  are 
not  only  untrue,  but  thoroughly  bad  and  irreligious. 
This  belief,  and  the  natural  anxiety  with  which  he  con- 
templates their  prevalence,  may  excuse  a  certain  vehe- 
mence and  looseness  of  statement  which  were  better 
avoided,  as  where  the  geologists  of  the  day  are  said  to 
be  "  broken  up  into  bands  of  specialists,  little  better 
than  scientific  banditti,  liable  to  be  beaten  in  detail, 
and  prone  to  commit  outrages  on  common-sense  and 
good  taste  which  bring  their  otherwise  good  cause  into 
disrepute ; "  and  where  he  desj^airingly  sugge&ts  that 
the  prevalence  of  the  doctrines  he  deprecates  "  seems 
to  indicate  that  the  accumulated  facts  of  our  age  have, 
gone  altogether  beyond  its  capacity  for  generalization, 
and,  but  for  the  vigor  which  one  sees  everywhere, 
might  be  taken  as  an  indication  that  the  human  mind 
has  fallen  into  a  state  of  senility." 

This  is  droll  reading,  when  one  considers  that  the 
"  evolutionist "  is  the  only  sort  of  naturalist  who  has 


ATTITUDE  OF   WORKING  NATURALISTS.    247 

much  occasion  to  employ  Lis  "  capacity  for  generaliza- 
tion "  npon  "  the  accumulated  facts  "  in  their  bearing 
upon  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  species ;  since  the 
"  special  creationist,"  who  maintains  that  they  were 
supernaturally  originated  just  as  they  are,  by  the  very 
terms  of  his  doctrine  places  them  out  of  the  reach  of 
scientific  explanation.  Again,  when  one  reflects  upon 
the  new  impetus  which  the  derivative  hypothesis  has 
given  to  systematic  natural  liistory,  and  reads  the  dec- 
laration of  a  master  in  this  department  (the  President 
of  the  Linnean  Society)  that  Mr.  Darwin  "  has  in  this 
nineteenth  century  brought  about  as  great  a  revolution 
in  the  philosophic  study  of  organic  Nature  as  that 
which  was  effected  in  the  previous  centmy  by  the  im- 
mortal Swede,"  it  sounds  oddly  to  hear  from  Dr. 
Dawson  that  "  it  obliterates  the  fine  perception  of  dif- 
ferences from  the  mind  of  the  naturalist,  .  .  .  destroys 
the  possibility  of  a  philosophical  classification,  reduc- 
ing all  things  to  a  mere  series,  and  leads  to  a  rapid  de- 
cay in  systematic  zoology  and  botany,  which  is  already 
very  manifest  among  the  disciples  of  Spencer  and 
Darwin  in  England."  So,  also,  "  it  removes  from  the 
study  of  IS^ature  the  ideas  of  final  cause  and  pui'pose  " 
— a  sentence  which  reads  curiously  in  the  light  of  Dar- 
win's special  investigations,  such  as  those  upon  the 
climbing  of  plants,  the  agency  of  insects  in  the  fertil- 
ization of  blossoms,  and  the  like,  which  have  brought 
back  teleology  to  natural  science,  wedded  to  morphol- 
ogy and  already  fruitful  of  discoveries. 

The  difiiculty  with  Dr.  Dawson  here  is  (and  it  need 
not  be  underrated)  that  apparently  he  cannot  as  yet 
believe  an  adaptation,  act,  or  result,  to  be  purposed  the 


248  DA.R  WINIANA. 

apparatus  of  wliich  is  perfected  or  evolved  in  the  course 
of  J^ature — a  common  but  a  crude  state  of  mind  on 
the  part  of  those  who  believe  that  there  is  any  origi- 
nating purpose  in  the  universe,  and  one  which,  we  are 
sure,  Dr.  Dawson  does  not  share  as  respects  the  mate- 
rial world  until  he  reaches  the  organic  kingdoms,  and 
there,  possibly,  because  he  sees  man  at  the  head  of 
them — -of  them,  while  above  them.  However  that 
may  be,  the  position  which  Dr.  Dawson  chooses  to  oc- 
cupy is  not  left  uncertain.  After  concluding,  substan- 
tiallv,  that  those  ''evolutionists"  who  exclude  desio^n 
from  IsTature  thereby  exclude  theism,  which  nobody 
will  deny,  he  proceeds  (on  page  348)  to  give  his  opin- 
ion that  the  "  evolutionism  which  professes  to  have  a 
creator  somewhere  behind  it.  .  .  .  is  practically  athe- 
istic," and,  "if  possible,  more  unphilosophical  than 
that  which  professes  to  set  out  from  absolute  and  eter- 
nal nonentity,"  etc. 

There  are  some  sentences  which  might  lead  one  to 
suppose  that  Dr.  Dawson  himself  admitted  of  an  evo- 
lution "  with  a  creator  somewhere  behind  it."  He 
offers  it  (page  320)  as  a  permissible  alternative  that 
even  man  "  has  been  created  mediately  by  the  opera- 
tion of  forces  also  concerned  in  the  production  of  other 
animals ; "  concedes  that  a  just  theory  "  does  not  even 
exclude  evolution  or  derivation,  to  a  certain  extent " 
(page  341) ;  and  that  "  a  modern  man  of  science  "  may 
safely  hold  "that  all  things  have  been  produced  by 
the  Supreme  Creative  Will,  acting  either  directly  or 
through  the  agency  of  the  forces  and  materials  of  his 
own  production."  "Well,  if  this  be  so,  why  denounce 
the  modern  man  of  science  so  severely  npon  the  other 


ATTITUDE  OF  WORKING  NATURALISTS.    249 

page  merely  for  accepting  tlie  permission  ?  At  first 
sight,  it  might  be  tliought  that  our  author  is  exposing 
himself  in  one  paragraph  to  a  share  of  the  condemna- 
tion which  he  deals  out  in  the  other.  But  the  per- 
mitted views  are  nowhere  adopted  as  his  own ;  the 
evolution  is  elsewhere  restricted  within  specific  limits  ; 
and  as  to  "  mediate  creation,"  although  we  cannot 
divine  what  is  here  meant  by  the  term,  there  is  reason 
to  think  it  does  not  imply  that  the  several  species  of  a 
genus  were  mediately  created,  in  a  natural  way,  through 
the  supernatural  creation  of  a  remote  common  ances- 
tor. So  that  his  own  judgment  in  the  matter  is  prob- 
ably more  correctly  gathered  from  the  extract  above 
referred  to  and  other  similar  deliverances,  such  as  that 
in  which  he  warns  those  who  "endeavor  to  steer  a 
middle  course,  and  to  maintain  that  the  Creator  has 
proceeded  by  way  of  evolution,"  that  "  the  bare,  hard 
logic  of  Spencer,  the  greatest  English  authority  on 
evolution,  leaves  no  place  for  this  compromise,  and 
shows  that  the  theory,  carried  out  to  its  legitimate 
consequences,  excludes  the  knowledge  of  a  Creator  and 
the  possibility  of  his  work." 

E^ow,  this  is  a  dangerous  line  to  take.  Those  defend- 
ers of  the  faith  are  more  zealous  than  wise  who  must 
needs  fire  away  in  their  catapults  the  very  bastions  of 
the  citadel,  in  the  defense  of  outposts  that  have  become 
untenable.  It  has  been  and  alwaj^s  will  be  possible  to 
take  an  atheistic  view  of  ligature,  but  far  more  reason- 
able from  science  and  philosophy  only  to  take  a  theis- 
tic  view.  Yoltaire's  saying  here  holds  true :  that  if 
there  were  no  God  known,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
invent  .one.     It  is  the  best,  if  not  the  only,  hypothesis 


250  DARWINIANA. 

for  the  explanation  of  the  facts.  Whether  the  philos- 
ophy of  Herbert  Spencer  (which  is  not  to  our  liking) 
is  here  fairly  presented,  we  have  little  occasion  and  no 
time  to  consider.  In  this  regard,  the  close  of  his  article 
]^o.  12  in  the  Contemjyorary  Revieio  shows,  at  least, 
his  expectation  of  the  entire  permanence  of  our  ideas 
of  cause,  origin,  and  religion,  and  predicts  the  futility 
of  the  expectation  that  the  '^  religion  of  humanity " 
will  be  the  religion  of  the  future,  or  "  can  ever  more 
than  temporarily  shut  out  the  thought  of  a  Power,  of 
which  humanity  is  but  a  small  and  fugitive  product, 
which  was  in  its  course  of  ever-changing  manifestation 
before  humanity  was,  and  will  continue  through  other 
manifestations  when  humanity  has  ceased  to  be."  If, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  philosophy  of  the  unknowable  of 
the  Infinite  may  be  held  in  a  merely  quasi-theistic  or 
even  atheistic  way,  were  not  its  ablest  expounders  and 
defenders  Hamilton  and  Dean  Mansel  ?  One  would 
suppose  that  Dr.  Dawson  might  discern  at  least  as  much 
of  a  divine  foundation  to  Nature  as  Herbert  Spencer 
and  Matthew  Arnold ;  might  recognize  in  this  power 
that  "  something  not  ourselves  that  makes  "  for  order 
as  well  as  "  for  righteousness,"  and  which  he  fitly  tenns 
supreme  creative  will ;  and,  resting  in  this,  endure  with 
more  complacency  and  faith  the  inevitable  prevalence 
of  evolutionary  views  which  he  is  powerless  to  hinder. 
Although  he  cannot  arrest  the  stream,  he  might  do 
something  toward  keeping  it  in  safe  channels. 

We  wished  to  say  something  about  the  way  in 
which  scientific  men,  worthy  of  the  name,  hold  hy- 
potheses and  theories,  using  them  for  the  purpose  of 
investigation  and  the  collocation  of  facts,  yielding  or 


ATTITUDE  OF   WORKING  NATURALISTS.    251 

witliliolding  assent  in  degrees  or  provisionally,  accord- 
ing to  the  amount  of  verification  or  likelihood,  or 
holding  it  long  in  suspense;  which  is  quite  in  contrast 
to  that  of  amateurs  and  general  speculators  (not  that 
we  reckon  Dr.  Dawson  in  this  class),  whose  assent  or 
denial  seldom  waits,  or  endures  qualification.  With 
them  it  must  on  all  occasions  be  yea  or  nay  only,  ac- 
cording to  the  letter  of  the  Scriptural  injunction,  and 
whatsoever  is  less  than  this,  or  between  the  two, 
cometh  of  evil. 


YII. 


EVOLUTION   AND  THEOLOGY.* 


(The  Nation,  January  15,  18T4.) 


The  attitude  of  theologians  toward  doctrines  of 
evolution,  from  the  nebular  hypothesis  down  to  "  Dar- 
winism," is  no  less  worthy  of  consideration,  and  hard- 
ly less  diverse,  than  that  of  naturalists.  But  the 
topic,  if  pursued  far,  leads  to  questions  too  wide  and 
deep  for  om'  handling  here,  except  incidentally,  in  the 
brief  notice  which  it  falls  in  our  way  to  take  of  the 
Rev.  George  Henslow's  recent  volume  on  "  The  Theory 
of  Evolution  of  Living  Things."  This  treatise  is  on 
the  side  of  evolution,  "  considered  as  illustrative  of 
the  wisdom  and  beneficence  of  the  Almighty."     It 

^  "  The  Theory  of  Evolution  of  Living  Things,  and  the  Application 
of  the  Principles  of  Evolution  to  Religion,  considered  as  illustrative 
of  the  '  Wisdom  and  Beneficence  of  the  Almighty.'  By  the  Rev. 
George  Henslow,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  F.  G.  S.,  etc."  New  York :  Macmil- 
lan  &  Co.     1873.     12mo,  pp.  220. 

"Systematic  Theology.  By  Charles  Hodge,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Vol.  ii.  (Part  II,  An- 
thropology.")   New  York:  Charles  Scribner  &  Co.     1872. 

"  Religion  and  Science  :  A  Series  of  Sunday  Lectures  on  the  Relation 
of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  or  the  Truths  revealed  in  Nature  and 
Scripture.  By  Joseph  Le  Conte,  Professor  of  Geology  and  Natural  Hia- 
tiory  in  the  University  of  California."  New  York :  D.  Appleton  &  Co. 
1874.     12mo,  pp.  324. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THEOLOGY,  253 

was  submitted  for  and  received  one  of  the  Actonian 
prizes  recently  awarded  by  the  Royal  Institution  of 
Great  Britain.  We  gather  that  the  staple  of  a  part 
of  it  is  worked  up  anew  from  some  earlier  discourses 
of  the  author  uj)on  "  Genesis  and  Geology,"  '^  Science 
and  Scripture  not  antagonistic,"  etc. 

In  coupling  with  it  a  chapter  of  the  second  volume 
of  Dr.  Hodge's  "  Systematic  Theology  (Part  II.,  An- 
thropology)," we  call  attention  to  a  recent  essay,  by 
an  able  and  veteran  writer,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question.  As  the  two  fairly  enough  represent  the  ex- 
tremes of  Christian  thought  upon  the  subject,  it  is 
convenient  to  review  them  in  connection.  Theolo- 
gians have  a  short  and  easy,  if  not  wholly  satisfactory, 
way  of  refuting  scientific  doctrines  which  they  object 
to,  by  pitting  the  authority  or  opinion  of  one  savant 
against  another.  Already,  amid  the  currents  and  ed- 
dies of  modern  opinion,  the  savants  may  enjoy  the 
same  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the  di\dnes — we 
mean,  of  course,  on  the  scientific  arena;  for  the  mu- 
tual refutation  of  conflicting  theologians  on  their  own 
ground  is  no  novelty.  It  is  not  by  way  of  offset,  how- 
ever, that  these  divergent  or  contradictory  views  are 
here  referred  to,  but  only  as  an  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  the  divines  are  by  no  means  all  arrayed  upon  one 
side  of  the  question  in  hand.  And  indeed,  in  the 
present  transition  period,  until  some  one  goes  much 
deeper  into  the  heart  of  the  subject,  as  respects  the  re- 
lations of  modern  science  to  the  foundations  of  relig- 
ious belief,  than  either  of  these  writers  has  done,  it  is 
as  well  that  the  weight  of  opinion  should  be  distrib- 
uted, even  if  only  according  to  prepossessions,  rather 


254:  DARWINIANA. 

than  that  the  whole  stress  should  bear  "ujDon  a  single 
point,  and  that  perhaps  the  authority  of  an  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture.  A  consensus  of  opinion  upon  Dr. 
Hodge's  ground,  for  instance  (although  better  guarded 
than  that  of  Dr.  Dawson),  if  it  were  still  possible, 
would — to  say  the  least — probably  not  at  all  help  to 
reconcile  science  and  religion.  Therefore,  it  is  not  to 
be  regretted  that  the  diversities  of  view  among  accred- 
ited theologians  and  theological  naturalists  are  about 
as  wide  and  as  equably  distributed  between  the  ex- 
tremes (and  we  may  add  that  the  views  themselves  are 
quite  as  hypothetical)  as  those  which  prevail  among 
the  various  naturalists  and  natural  philosophers  of  the 
day. 

As  a  theologian,  Mr.  Henslow  doubtless  is  not  to 
be  compared  with  the  veteran  professor  at  Princeton. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  has  the  advantage  of  being  a 
naturalist,  and  the  son  of  a  naturalist,  as  well  as  a 
clergyman  :  consequently  he  feels  the  full  force  of  an 
array  of  facts  in  nature,  and  of  the  natural  inferences 
from  them,  which  the  theological  professor,  from  his 
Biblical  standpoint,  and  on  his  implicit  assumption 
that  the  Old  Testament  must  needs  teach  true  science, 
can  hardly  be  expected  to  appreciate.  Accordingly,  a 
naturalist  would  be  apt  to  say  of  Dr.  Hodge's  exposi- 
tion of  "  theories  of  the  universe "  and  kindred  top- 
ics— and  in  no  captious  spirit — that  whether  right  or 
wrong  on  particular  points,  he  is  not  often  right  or 
wrong  in  the  way  of  a  man  of  science. 

Probably  from  the  lack  of  familiarity  with  preva- 
lent ideas  and  their  history,  the  theologians  are  apt  to 
suppose  that  scientific  men  of  the  present  day  are  tak- 


EVOLUTION  AND   THEOLOGY.  255 

ing  up  theories  of  evolution  in  pure  wantonness  or 
mere  superfluity  of  naughtiness ;  that  it  would  have 
been  quite  possible,  as  well  as  more  proper,  to  leave 
all  such  matters  alone.  Quieta  non  mover e  is  doubt- 
less a  wise  rule  upon  such  subjects,  so  long  as  it  is  fair- 
ly applicable.  But  the  time  for  its  application  in  re- 
spect to  questions  of  the  origin  and  relations  of  exist- 
ing species  has  gone  by.  To  ignore  them  is  to  imitate 
the  foolish  bird  that  seeks  security  by  hiding  its  head 
in  the  sand.  Moreover,  the  naturalists  did  not  force 
these  questions  upon  the  world ;  but  the  world  they 
study  forced  them  upon  the  naturalists.  How  these 
questions  of  derivation  came  naturally  and  inevitably 
to  be  revived,  how  the  cumulative  probability  that  the 
existing  are  derived  from  preexisting  forms  impressed 
itself  upon  the  minds  of  many  naturalists  and  think- 
ers, Mr.  Henslow  has  briefly  explained  in  the  intro- 
duction and  illustrated  in  the  succeeding  chapters  of 
the  first  part  of  his  book.  Science,  he  declares,  has 
been  compelled  to  take  up  the  hjqDothesis  of  the  evo- 
lution of  living  things  as  better  explaining  all  the 
phenomena.  In  his  opinion,  it  has  become  "  infinite- 
ly more  probable  that  all  living  and  extinct  beings 
have  been  developed  or  evolved  by  natural  laws  of 
generation  from  preexisting  forms,  than  that  they, 
with  all  their  innumerable  races  and  varieties,  should 
owe  their  existences  severally  to  Creative  fiats."  This 
doctrine,  which  even  Dr.  Hodge  allows  may  possibly 
be  held  in  a  theistic  sense,  and  which,  as  we  suppose, 
is  so  held  or  viewed  by  a  great  proportion  of  tlie  nat- 
uralists of  our  day,  Mr.  Henslow  maintains  is  fully 
compatible  with  dogmatic  as  well  as  natural  theology ; 


256  LARWINIANA, 

that  it  explains  moral  anomalies,  and  acconnts  for  the 
mixtm^e  of  good  and  evil  in  the  world,  as  well  as  for 
the  merely  relative  perfection  of  things  ;  and,  iinallv, 
that  "  the  whole  scheme  which  God  has  framed  for 
man's  existence,  from  the  first  that  was  created  to  all 
eternity,  collaj)ses  if  the  great  law  of  evolution  be 
suppressed."  The  second  part  of  his  book  is  occupied 
with  a  development  of  this  line  of  argument.  By 
this  doctrine  of  evolution  he  does  not  mean  the  Dar- 
winian hypothesis,  although  he  accepts  and  includes 
this,  looking  upon  natural  selection  as  playing  an  im- 
portant though  not  an  unlimited  part.  He  would  be 
an  evolutionist  with  Mivart  and  Owen  and  Argyll, 
even  if  he  had  not  the  vera  causa  which  Darwin  con- 
tributed to  help  him  on.  And,  on  rising  to  man,  he 
takes  ground  with  Wallace,  saying : 

"  I  would  wish  to  state  distinctly  that  I  do  not  at  present 
see  any  evidence  for  believing  in  a  gradual  development  of  man 
from  the  lower  animals  by  ordinary  natural  laws  ;  that  is,  with- 
out some  special  interference,  or,  if  it  be  preferred,  some  excep- 
tional conditions  which  have  thereby  separated  him  from  all  other 
creatures,  and  placed  him  decidedly  in  advance  of  them  all. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  absurd  to  regard  him  as  totally 
severed  from  them.  It  is  the  great  degree  of  difference  I  would 
insist  upon,  bodily,  mental,  and  spiritual,  which  precludes  the 
idea  of  his  having  been  evolved  by  exactly  the  same  processes, 
and  with  the  same  limitations,  as,  for  example,  the  horse  from 
the  palfeotherium:" 

In  illustrating  this  view,  he  reproduces  Wallace's 
well-known  points,  and  adds  one  or  two  of  his  own. 
We  need  not  follow  up  his  lines  of  argument.  The 
essay,  indeed,  adds  nothing  material  to  the  discussion 


EVOLUTION  AND   THEOLOOT.  257 

of  evolution,  altliongli  it  states  one  side  of  the  case 
moderately  well,  as  far  as  it  goes. 

Dr.  Hodge  approaches  tlie  subject  from  tlie  side 
of  systematic  theology,  and  considers  it  mainly  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  origin  and  original  state  of  man. 
Under  each  head  he  first  lays  down  "  the  Scriptural 
doctrine,"  and  then  discusses  ''anti-Scriptural  theo- 
ries," which  latter,  under  the  first  head,  are  the  hea- 
then doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation,  the  modern 
doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation,  theories  of  devel- 
opment, specially  that  of  Darwin,  the  atheistic  char- 
acter of  the  theory,  etc.  Although  he  admits  "  that 
there  is  a  theistic  and  an  atheistic  form  of  the  nebu- 
lar hypothesis  as  to. the  origin  of  the  universe,  so  there 
may  be  a  theistic  interpretation  of  the  Darwinian 
theory,"  yet  he  contends  that  "  the  system  is  thorough- 
ly atheistic,"  notwithstanding  that  the  author  "ex- 
pressly acknowledges  the  existence  of  God."  Curious- 
ly enough,  the  atheistic  form  of  evolutionary  hy- 
potheses, or  what  he  takes  for  such,  is  the  only  one 
which  Dr.  Hodge  cares  to  examin  e.  E  ven  the  "  Reign 
of  Law"  theory,  Owen's  "purposive  route  of  devel- 
opment and  change  ....  by  virtue  of  mherent  ten- 
dencies thereto,"  as  well  as  other  expositions  of  the 
general  doctrine  on  a  theistic  basis,  are  barely  men- 
tioned without  a  word  of  comment,  except,  perhaps, 
a  general  "  protest  against  the  arraying  of  probabili- 
ties against  the  teachings  of  Scripture." 

]^[ow,  all  former  experience  shows  that  it  is  neither 
safe  nor  wise  to  pronounce  a  whole  system  "  thorough- 
ly atheistic"  which  it  is  conceded  may  be  held  theis- 
tically,  and  which  is  likely  to  be  largely  held,  if  not 


258  DARWINIANA. 

to  prevail,  on  scientific  grounds.  It  may  be  well  to 
remember  that,  "  of  the  two  great  minds  of  the  sev- 
enteenth century,  ISTewton  and  Leibnitz,  both  pro- 
foundly religious  as  well  as  philosophical,  one  pro- 
duced the  theory  of  gravitation,  the  other  objected  to 
that  theory  that  it  was  subversive  of  natural  religion ; 
also  that  the  nebular  hypothesis — a  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  theory  of  gravitation  and  of  the  sub- 
sequent progress  of  physical  and  astronomical  dis- 
covery— ^has  been  denounced  as  atheistical  even  down 
to  our  day."     It  has  now  outlived  anathema. 

It  is  undeniable  that  Mr.  Darwin  lays  himself  open 
to  this  kind  of  attack.  The  propounder  of  natural 
selection  might  be  expected  to  make  the  most  of  the 
principle,  and  to  overwork  the  law  of  parsimony  in 
its  behalf.  And  a  system  in  which  exquisite  adapta- 
tion of  means  to  ends,  complicated  interdependences, 
and  orderly  sequences,  appear  as  results  instead  of  be- 
ing introduced  as  factors,  and  in  which  special  design 
is  ignored  in  the  particulars,  must  needs  be  obnoxious, 
unless  guarded  as  we  suppose  Mr.  Darwin  might  have 
guarded  his  ground  if  he  had  chosen  to  do  so.  Our 
own  opinion,  after  long  consideration,  is,  that  Mr. 
Darwin  has  no  atheistical  intent ;  and  that,  as  respects 
the  test  question  of  design  in  ^N^ature,  his  view  may 
be  made  clear  to  the  theological  mind  by  likening  it 
to  that  of  the  "  believer  in  general  but  not  in  particu- 
lar Providence."  There  is  no  need  to  cull  passages  in 
support  of  this  interpretation  from  his  various  works 
while  the  author — the  most  candid  of  men — retains 

• 

through  all  the  editions  of  the  "  Origin  of  Species" 


EVOLUTION  AND  THEOLOGY.  259 

the  two   mottoes   from  Wliewell  and   Bisliop   But- 
ler.^ 

The  gist  of  the  matter  lies  in  the  answer  that 
should  be  rendered  to  the  questions — 1.  Do  order  and 
useful-working  collocation,  pervading  a  s^^stem  through- 
out all  its  parts,  prove  design  ?  and,  2.  Is  such  evi- 
dence negatived  or  invalidated  by  the  probability  that 
these  particular  collocations  belong  to  lineal  series  of 
such  in  time,  and  diversified  in  the  course  of  Nature 
— grown  up,  so  to  say,  step  by  step?  We  do  not 
use  the  terms  "  adaptation,"  "  arrangement  of  means 
to  ends,"  and  the  like,  because  they  beg  the  ques- 
tion in  stating  it. 

Finally,  ought  not  theologians  to  consider  whether 
they  have  not  already,  in  principle,  conceded  to  the 
geologists  and  physicists  all  that  they  are  asked  to  con- 
cede to  the  evolutionists ;  whether,  indeed,  the  main 
natural  theological  difficulties  which  attend  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution — serious  as  they  may  be — are  not 
virtually  contained  in  the  admission  that  there  is  a 
system  of  l^ature  with  fixed  laws.  This,  at  least,  we 
may  say,  that,  under  a  system  in  which  so  much  is 
done  "  by  the  establishment  of  general  laws,"  it  is 

^  "  But  with  regard  to  the  material  world,  we  can  at  least  go  so  far 
as  this — we  can  perceive  that  events  are  brought  about,  not  by  insu- 
lated interpositions  of  divine  power,  exerted  in  each  particular  case, 
but  by  the  establishment  of  general  laws." — WhewelPs  Bridgewater 
Treatise. 

"  The  only  distinct  meaning  of  the  word  '  natural '  is  stated^  fi^cd^  or 
settled ;  since  what  is  natural  as  much  requires  and  presupposes  an  in- 
telligent agent  to  render  it  so — i.  e.,  to  effect  it  continually  or  at  stated 
times — as  what  is  supernatural  or  miraculous  does  to  effect  it  for  once." 
— Butler'' s  Analogy. 


260  DARWINIANA, 

legitimate  for  any  one  to  prove,  if  he  can,  that  any 
particular  thing  in  the  natural  world  is  so  done  ;  and 
it  is  the  proper  business  of  scientific  men  to  push  their 
enquiries  in  this  direction.  , 

It  is  beside  the  point  for  Dr.  Hodge  to  object  that, 
''  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  what  concerns  the  ori- 
gin of  things  cannot  be  known  except  by  a  supernat- 
ural revelation ; "  that  "  science  has  to  do  with  the 
facts  and  laws  of  ISTature  :  here  the  question  concerns 
the  origin  of  such  facts."  For  the  very  object  of  the 
evolutionists,  and  of  Mr.  Darwin  in  particular,  is  to 
remove  these  subjects  from  the  category  of  origina- 
tion, and  to  bring  them  under  the  domain  of  science 
by  treating  them  as  questions  about  how  things  go  on, 
not  how  they  began.  Whether  the  succession  of  liv- 
ing forms  on  the  earth  is  or  is  not  among  the  facts  and 
laws  of  ITature,  is  the  very  matter  in  controversy. 

Moreover,  adds  Dr.  Hodge,  it  has  been  conceded 
that  in  this  matter  "  proofs,  io  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  are  not  to  be  had  ;  we  are  beyond  the  region  of 
demonstration,  and  have  only  probabilities  to  con- 
sider." "Wherefore  "  Christians  have  a  right  to  pro- 
test against  the  arraying  of  probabilities  against  the 
clear  teachings  of  Scripture."  The  word  is  italicized, 
as  if  to  intimate  that  probabilities  have  no  claims 
which  a  theologian  is  bound  to  respect.  As  to  array- 
ing them  against  Scripture,  there  is  nothing  whatever 
in  the  essay  referred  to  that  justifies  the  statement. 
Indeed,  no  occasion  offered ;  for  the  writer  was  dis- 
cussing evolution  in  its  relations  to  theism,  not  to 
Biblical  theology,  and  probably  would  not  be  disposed 
to  intermix  arguments  so  different  in  kind  as  those 


EVOLUTION  AND   THEOLOGY.  261 

from  natural  science  and  tlios^  from  revelation.  To 
pursue  eacli  independently,  according  to  its  own 
method,  and  tlien  to  compare  the  results,  is  thought 
to  be  the  better  mode  of  proceeding.  The  weighing 
of  probabilities  we  had  regarded  as  a  proper  exercise 
of  the  mind  preparatory  to  forming  an  opinion.  Prob- 
abilities, hypotheses,  and  even  surmises,  whatever 
they  may  be  worth,  are  just  what,  as  it  seems  to  us, 
theologians  ought  not  to  be  foremost  in  decrying, 
particularly  those  who  deal  with  the  reconciliation  of 
science  with  Scripture,  Genesis  with  geology,  and  the 
like.  As  soon  as  they  go  beyond  the  literal  statements 
even  of  the  English  text,  "and  enter  into  the  details  of 
the  subject,  they  find  ample  occasion  and  display  a 
special  aptitude  for  producing  and  using  them,  not 
always  with  very  satisfactory  results.  It  is  not,  per- 
haps, for  us  to  suggest  that  the  theological  army  in  the 
past  has  been  too  much  encumbered  with  impedimenta 
for  effective  aggression  in  the  conflict  against  atheis- 
tic tendencies  in  modern  science ;  and  that  in  resist- 
ing attack  it  has  endeavored  to  hold  too  much  ground, 
so  wasting  strength  in  the  obstinate  defense  of  posi- 
tions which  have  become  unimportant  as  well  as  un- 
tenable. Some  of  the  arguments,  as  well  as  the  guns, 
which  well  served  a  former  generation,  need  to  be 
replaced  by  o'thers  of  longer  range  and  greater  pene- 
tration. 

If  the  theologians  are  slow  to  discern  the  signs 
and  exigencies  of  the  times,  the  religious  philosophi- 
cal naturalists  must  be  looked  to.  Since  the  above  re- 
marks were  written,  Prof.  Le  Conte's  "  Eeligion  and 

Science,"  just  issued,  has  come  to  our  hands.     It  is  a 
12 


262  LABWINIANA. 

series  of  nineteen  Sunday  lectures  on  tlie  relation  of 
natural  and  revealed  religion,  prepared  in  tlie  first  in- 
stance for  a  Bible-class  of  young  men,  his  pupils  in 
the  University  of  South  Carolina,  repeated  to  similar 
classes  at  the  University  of  California,  and  finally  de- 
livered to  a  larger  and  general  audience.  They  are 
printed,  the  preface  states,  from  a  verljatim  report, 
with  only  verbal  alterations  and  corrections  of  some 
redundancies  consequent  upon  extemporaneous  deliv- 
ery. They  are  not,  we  find,  lectures  on  science  under 
a  religious  aspect,  but  discourses  upon  Christian  theol- 
ogy and  its  foundations  from  a  scientific  layman's  point 
of  view,  with  illustrations  from  his  own  lines  of  study. 
As  the  headings  show,  they  cover,  or,  more  correctly 
speaking,  range  over,  almost  the  whole  field  of  the- 
ological thought,  beginning  with  the  personality  of 
Deity  as  revealed  in  IS^ature,  the  spiritual  nature  and 
attributes  of  Deity,  and  the  incarnation ;  discussing 
by  the  way  the  general  relations  of  theology  to  science, 
man,  and  his  place  in  IN'ature  ;  and  ending  with  a  dis- 
cussion of  predestination  and  free-will,  and  of  prayer 
in  relation  to  invariable  law — all  in  a  volume  of  three 
hundred  and  twenty -four  duodecimo  pages  !  And  yet 
the  author  remarks  that  many  important  subjects  have 
been  omitted  because  he  felt  unable  to  present  them 
in  a  satisfactory  manner  from  a  scientific  point  of  view. 
"We  note,  indeed,  that  one  or  two  topics  which  would 
naturally  come  in  his  way — such,  especially,  as  the  re- 
lation of  evolution  to  the  human  race* — are  somewhat 
conspicuously  absent.  That  most  of  the  momentous 
subjects  which  he  takes  up  are  treated  discursively, 
and  not  exhaustively,  is  all  the  better  for  his  readers. 


EVOLUTION  AND   THEOLOGY.  263 

What  tliey  and  we  most  want  to  know  is,  liow  these 
serious  matters  are  viewed  by  an  honest,  enlightened, 
and  devont  scientific  man.  To  solve  the  mysteries  of 
the  universe,  as  the  French  lady  required  a  philosopher 
to  explain  his  new  system,  ^'dansun  mot^''  is  beyond 
rational  expectation. 

All  that  we  have  time  and  need  to  say  of  this  lit- 
tle book  upon  great  subjects  relates  to  its  spirit  and  to 
the  view  it  takes  of  evolution.  Its  theology  is  wholly 
orthodox  ;  its  tone  devotional,  charitable,  and  hopeful ; 
its  confidence  in  religious  truth,  as  taught  both  in  Na- 
ture and  revelation,  complete ;  the  illustrations  often 
happy,  but  often  too  rhetorical ;  the  science,  as  might 
be  expected  from  this  author,  unimpeachable  as  re- 
gards matters  of  fact,  discreet  as  to  matters  of  opin- 
ion. The  argument  from  design  in  the  first  lecture 
brings  up  the  subject  of  the  introduction  of  species. 
Of  this,  considered  '^  as  a  question  of  history,  there  is 
no  witness  on  the  stand  except  geology." 

"  The  present  condition  of  geological  evidence  is  undoubted- 
ly in  favor  of  some  degree  of  suddenness — is  against  infinite 
gradations.  The  evidence  may  be  meagre  ....  but  whether 
meagre  or  not,  it  is  all  the  evidence  we  have.  .  .  .  Now,  the 
evidence  of  geology  to-day  is,  that  species  seem  to  come  in  sud- 
denly and  in  full  perfection,  remain  substantially  unchanged  dur- 
ing the  term  of  their  existence,  and  pass  away  in  full  perfection. 
Other  species  take  their  place  apparently  by  substitution,  not 
hj  transmutation.  But  you  will  ask  me,  '  Do  you,  then,  reject  the 
doctrine  of  evolution?  Do  you  accept  the  creation  of  species 
directly  and  without  secondary  agencies  and  processes? '  I  an- 
swer, No  !  Science  knows  nothing  of  phenomena  which  do  not 
take  place  by  secondary  causes  and  processes.  She  does  not  deny 
such  occurrence,  for  true  Science  is  not  dogmatic,  and  she  knows 


264:  DARWINIANA. 

full  well  tliat,  tracing  up  tlie  phenomena  from  cause  to  cause, 
we  must  somewhere  reach  the  more  direct  agency  of  a  First 
Cause.  ...  It  is  evident  that,  however  species  were  intro- 
duced, whether  suddenly  or  gradually,  it  is  the  duty  of  Science 
ever  to  strive  to  understand  the  means  and  processes  by  which 
species  originated.  .  .  .  Now,  of  the  various  conceivable  sec- 
ondary causes  and  processes,  by  some  of  which  we  must  believe 
species  originated,  by  far  the  most  probable  is  certainly  that  of 
evolution  from  other  species." 

[We  might  interpose  the  remark  that  the  witness 
on  the  stand,  if  subjected  to  cross-examination  by  a 
biologist,  might  be  made  to  give  a  good  deal  of  testi- 
mony in  favor  of  transmutation  rather  than  substitu- 
tion.] 

After  referring  to  different  ideas  as  to  the  cause  or 
mode  of  evolution,  he  concludes  that  it  can  make  no 
difference,  so  far  as  the  argument  of  design  in  E^atm^e 
is  concerned,  whether  there  be  evolution  or  not,  or 
whether,  in  the  case  of  evolution,  the  change  be  parox- 
ysmal or  uniform.  We  may  infer  even  that  he  accepts 
the  idea  that  "physical  and  chemical  forces  are  changed 
into  vital  force,  and  vice  versa.^^  Physicists  incline 
more  readily  to  this  than  physiologists  ;  and  if  what  is 
called  vital  force  be  a  force  in  the  physicists'  sense, 
then  it  is  almost  certainly  so.  But  the  illustration  on 
page  2Y5  touches  this  point  only  seemingly.  It  really 
concerns  only  the  storing  and  the  using  of  physical 
force  in  a  living  organism.  If,  for  want  of  a  special 
expression,  we  continue  to  use  the  term  vital  force  to 
designate  that  intangible  something  which  directs  and 
governs  the  accumulation  and  expenditure  of  physical 
force  in  organisms,  then  there  is  as  yet  no  proof  and 


EVOLUTION  AND  THEOLOGY.  265 

little  likeliliood  that  tliis  is  correlate  with  physical 
force. 

"  A  few  words  upon  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
and  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  and  I  am  done,"  says  Prof. 
Le  Conte,  and  so  are  we : 

"It  might  be  expected  by  many  that,  after  speaking  of 
schemes  of  reconciliation,  I  should  give  mine  also.  My  Chris- 
tian friends,  these  schemes  of  reconciliation  become  daily  more 
and  more  distasteful  to  me.  I  have  used  them  in  times  past ; 
but  now  the  deliberate  construction  of  such  schemes  seems  to 
me  almost  like  trifling  with  the  words  of  Scripture  and  the 
teachings  of  Nature.  They  seem  to  me  almost  irreverent,  and 
quite  foreign  to  the  true,  humble,  liberal  spirit  of  Christianity ; 
they  are  so  evidently  artificial,  so  evidently  mere  ingenious 
human  devices.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  will  only  regard 
the  two  books  in  the  philosophical  spirit  which  I  have  endeav- 
ored to  describe,  and  then  simply  wait  and  possess  our  souls 
in  patience,  the  questions  in  dispute  will  soon  adjust  them- 
selves as  other  similar  questions  have  already  done." 


yiii. 

WHAT   IS   DARWINISM  ?  * 
(The  Nation,  May  28,  1874.) 

The  question  whicli  Dr.  Hodge  asks  lie  promptly 
and  decisively  answers:  "  What  is  Darwinism?  it  is 
atheism." 

Leaving  aside  all  subsidiary  and  incidental  matters, 
let  us  consider — 1.  What  the  Darwinian  doctrine  is, 
and  2.  How  it  is  proved  to  be  atheistic.  Dr.  Hodge's 
own  statement  of  it  cannot  be  very  much  bettered : 

"His  [Darwin's]  work  on  the  'Origin  of  Species'  does  not 
purport  to  be  philosophical.  In  this  aspect  it  is  very  different 
from  the  cognate  works  of  Mr.  Spencer.  Darwin  does  not  specu- 
late on  the  origin  of  the  universe,  on  the  nature  of  matter  or  of 
force.  He  is  simply  a  naturalist,  a  careful  and  laborious  ob- 
server, skillful  in  his  descriptions,  and  singularly  candid  in  deal- 
ing with  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  his  peculiar  doctrine.  Ho 
set  before  himself  a  single  problem — namely.  How  are  the  fauna 

'  "  What  is  Darwinism  ?  By  Charles  Hodge,  Princeton,  N.  J."  New 
York :    Seribner,  Armstrong  &  Co.     1874. 

"  The  Doctrine  of  Evolution.  By  Alexander  Winchell,  LL.  D.,  etc." 
New  York:    Harper  &  Brothers.     1874. 

"  Darwinism  and  Design ;  or,  Creation  by  Evolution.  By  George 
St.  Clair."     London  :    Hodder  &  Stoughton.     1873. 

"  Westminster  Sermons.  By  the  Rev.  Charles  Kingsley,  F.  L.  S., 
F.  G.  S.,  Canon  of  Westminster,  etc."  London  and  New  York  :  Mac- 
millan  &  Co.     1874. 


WBAT  IS  DARWINISM?  267 

and  flora  of  our  earth  to  be  accounted  for?  ...  To  account  for 
the  existence  of  matter  and  life,  Mr.  Darwin  admits  a  Creator. 
This  is  done  explicitly  and  repeatedly.  .  .  .  He  assumes  the  ef- 
ficiency of  physical  causes,  showing  no  disposition  to  resolve  them 
into  mind-force  or  into  the  efficiency  of  the  First  Cause.  .  .  .  lie 
assumes,  also,  the  existence  of  life  in  the  form  of  one  or  more 
primordial  germs.  .  .  .  How  all  living  things  on  earth,  includ- 
ing the  endless  variety  of  plants  and  all  the  diversity  of  animals, 
.  .  .  have  descended  from  the  primordial  animalcule,  he  thinks, 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  operation  of  the  following  natural 
laws,  viz. :  First,  the  law  of  Heredity,  or  that  by  which  like 
begets  like — the  offspring  are  like  the  parent.  Second,  the  law 
of  Variation ;  that  is,  while  the  offspring  are  in  all  essential 
characteristics  like  their  immediate  progenitor,  they  neverthe- 
less vary  more  or  less  \vithin  narrow  limits  from  their  parent 
and  from  each  other.  Some  of  these  variations  are  indifferent, 
some  deteriorations,  some  improvements — that  is,  such  as  enable 
the  plant  or  animal  to  exercise  its  functions  to  greater  advan- 
tage. Third,  the  law  of  Over-Production.  All  plants  and  ani- 
mals tend  to  increase  in  a  geometrical  ratio,  and  therefore  tend 
to  overrun  enormously  the  means  of  support.  If  all  the  seeds 
of  a  plant,  all  the  spawn  of  a  fish,  were  to  arrive  at  maturity,  in 
a  very  short  time  the  world  could  not  contain  them.  Hence, 
of  necessity,  arises  a  struggle  for  life.  Only  a  few  of  the  myri- 
.  ads  born  can  possibly  live.  Fourth,  here  comes  in  the  law  of 
ISTatural  Selection,  or  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest ;  that  is,  if  any 
individual  of  a  given  species  of  plant  or  animal  happens  to  have 
a  slight  deviation  from  the  normal  type  favorable  to  its  success 
in  the  struggle  for  life,  it  will  survive.  This  variation,  by  the 
law  of  heredity,  will  be  transmitted  to  its  offspring,  and  by  them 
again  to  theirs.  Soon  these  favored  ones  gain  the  ascendency, 
and  the  less  favored  perish,  and  the  modification  becomes  estab- 
lished in  the  species.  After  a  time,  another  and  another  of  such 
favorable  variations  occur,  with  like  results.  Thus,  very  gradu- 
ally, great  changes  of  structure  are  introduced,  and  not  only 
species,  but  genera,  families,  and  orders,  in  the  vegetable  and 
animal  world,  are  produced  "  (pp.  26-29). 


26S  DARWINIAN  A. 

XoWj  the  triitli  or  the  probability  of  Darwin's  hy- 
pothesis is  not  here  the  question,  but  only  its  congru- 
ity  or  incongruity  with  theism.  We  need  take  only 
one  exception  to  this  abstract  of  it,  but  that  is  an 
important  one  for  the  present  investigation.  It  is  to 
the  sentence  which  we  have  italicized  in  the  earlier 
part  of  Dr.  Hodge's  own  statement  of  what  Darwin- 
ism is.  With  it  begins  our  inquiry  as  to  how  he 
proves  the  doctrine  to  be  atheistic. 

First,  if  we  rightly  apprehend  it,  a  suggestion  of 
atheism  is  infused  into  the  premises  in  a  negative 
form :  Mr.  Darwin  shows  no  disposition  to  resolve 
the  efficiency  of  physical  causes  into  the  efficiency  of 
the  First  Cause.  oS^ext  (on  page  48)  comes  the  posi- 
tive charge  that  "Mr.  Darwin,  although  himself  a  the- 
ist,"  maintains  that  "  the  contrivances  manifested  in 
the  organs  of  plants  and  animals  ....  are  not  due  to 
the  continued  cooperation  and  control  of  the  divdne 
mind,  nor  to  the  original  purpose  of  God  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  universe."  As  to  the  negative  state- 
ment, it  might  suffice  to  recall  Dr.  Hodge's  truthful 
remark  that  Darwin  "  is  simply  a  naturalist,"  and  that 
"  his  work  on  the  origin  of  species  does  not  pui*port  to 
"be  philosophical."  In  physical  and  physiological  trea- 
tises, the  most  religious  men  rarely  think  it  necessary 
to  postulate  the  First  Cause,  nor  are  they  misjudged 
by  the  omission.  But  sm'ely  Mr.  Darwdn  does  show 
the  disposition  which  our  author  denies  him,  not  only 
by  implication  in  many  instances,  but  most  explicitly 
where  one  would  naturally  look  for  it,  namely — at  the 
close  of  the  volume  in  question :  "  To  my  mind,  it 
accords  better  with  what  we  know  of  the  laws  im- 


WHAT  IS  DARWimSM?  269 

pressed  on  matter  by  the  Creator,"  etc.  If  that  does 
not  refer  the  efficiency  of  physical  causes  to  the  First 
Cause,  what  form  of  words  could  do  so  ?  The  posi- 
tive charge  appears  to  be  equally  gratuitous.  In  both 
Dr.  Hodge  must  have  overlooked  the  begiuning  as 
well  as  the  end  of  the  volume  which  he  judges  so  hard- 
ly. Just  as  mathematicians  and  physicists,  in  their 
systems,  are  wont  to  postulate  the  fundamental  and 
undeniable  truths  they  are  concerned  with,  or  what 
they  take  for  such  and  require  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
so  Mr.  Darwin  postulates,  upon  the  first  page  of  his 
notable  work,  and  in  the  words  of  Whewell  and  Bish- 
op Butler :  1.  The  establishment  by  divine  power  of 
general  laws,  according  to  which,  rather  than  by  insu- 
lated interpositions  in  each  particular  case,  events  are 
brought  about  in  the  material  world ;  and  2.  That  by 
the  word  "  natural "  is  meant  "  stated,  fixed,  or  settled," 
by  this  same  power,  "  since  what  is  natural  as  much 
requires  and  presupposes  an  intelligent  agent  to  ren- 
der it  so — ^i.  e.,  to  effect  it  continually  or  at  stated 
times — as  what  is  supernatm'al  or  miraculous  does  to 
effect  it  for  once."  ^  So  when  Mr.  Darwin  makes  such 
large  and  free  use  of  "  natural  as  antithetical  to  super- 
natural" causes,  we  are  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  ul- 
timate source  which  he  refers  them  to.  Rather  let  us 
say  there  ought  to  be  no  doubt,  unless  there  are  other 
grounds  for  it  to  rest  upon. 

Such  ground  there  must  be,  or  seem  to  be,  to  jus- 
tify or  excuse  a  veteran  divine  and  scholar  like  Dr. 
Hodge  in  his  deduction  of  pure  atheism  from  a  system 

^  These  two  postulate-mottoes  are  quoted  in  full  in  a  previous  article, 
in  No.  446  of  the  Nation  (page  259  of  the  present  volume). 


270  DARWINIANA. 

produced  bj  a  confessed  tlieist,  and  based,  as  we  have 
seen,  ii]3on  thoroughly  orthodox  fundamental  concep- 
tions. Even  if  we  may  not  hope  to  reconcile  the  dif- 
ference between  the  theologian  and  the  naturalist,  it 
may  be  well  to  ascertain  where  their  real  divergence 
begins,  or  ought  to  begin,  and  what  it  amounts  to. 
Seemingly,  it  is  in  their  proximate,  not  in  their  ulti- 
mate, principles,  as  Dr.  Hodge  insists  when  he  declares 
that  the  whole  di'ift  of  Darwinism  is  to  prove  that 
everything  "  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  blind  opera- 
tion of  natural  causes,  without  any  intention,  pui'pose, 
or  cooperation  of  God "  (page  64).  ''  Why  don't  he 
say,"  cries  the  theologian,  ^'  that  the  complicated  or- 
gans of  plants  and  animals  are  the  product  of  the  di- 
vine intelhgence  ?  If  God  made  them,  it  makes  no 
difference,  so  far  as  the  question  of  design  is  concerned, 
how  he  made  them,  whether  at  once  or  by  process  of 
evolution"  (page  58).  But,  as  we  have  seen,  Mr.  Dar- 
win does  say  that,  and  he  over  and  over  implies  it 
when  he  refers  the  production  of  species  ""  to  second- 
ary causes,"  and  likens  their  origination  to  the  origi- 
nation of  individuals ;  species  being  series  of  individuals 
with  greater  difference.  It  is  not  for  the  theologian 
to  object  that  the  power  which  made  individual  men 
and  other  animals,  and  all  the  differences  which  the 
races  of  mankind  exhibit,  through  secondary  causes, 
could  not  have  originated  congeries  of  more  or 
less  greatly  differing  individuals  through  the  same 
causes. 

Clearly,  then,  the  difference  between  the  theologian 
and  the  naturalist  is  not  fundamental,  and  evolution 
may  be  as  profoundly  and  as  particularly  theistic  as  it  is 


WJIAT  IS  DARWimSMf  271 

increasingly  probable.  The  taint  of  atlieism  which,  in 
Dr.  Hodge's  view,  leavens  the  w^hole  lump,  is  not  in- 
herent in  the  original  grain  of  Darwinism — in  the 
principles  posited — but  has  somehow  been  introduced 
in  the  subsequent  treatment.  Possibly,  when  found, 
it  may  be  eliminated.  Perhaps  there  is  mutual  mis- 
apprehension growing  out  of  some  ambiguity  in  the 
use  of  terms.  "Without  any  intention,  purpose,  or 
cooperation  of  God."  These  are  sweeping  and  effect- 
ual words.  How  came  they  to  be  applied  to  natural 
selection  by  a  divine  who  professes  that  God  ordained 
w^hatsoever  cometh  to  pass  ?  In  this  wise :  "  The 
point  to  be  proved  is,  that  it  is  the  distinctive  doctrine 
of  Mr.  Darwin  that  species  owe  their  origin — 1.  Not  to 
the  original  intention  of  the  divine  mind ;  2.  JSTot  to 
special  acts  of  creation  calling  new  forms  into  exist- 
ence at  certain  epochs  ;  3.  Not  to  the  constant  and 
everywhere  operative  efficiency  of  God  guiding  physi- 
cal causes  in  the  production  of  intended  effects ;  but  4. 
To  the  gradual  accumulation  of  unintended  variations 
of  structure  and  instinct  securing  some  advantage  to 
fheir  subjects  "  (page  52).  Then  Dr.  Hodge  adduces 
"  Darwin's  own  testimony,"  to  the  pui-port  that  natu- 
ral selection  denotes  the  totality  of  natural  causes  and 
their  interactions,  physical  and  physiological,  repro- 
duction, variation,  birth,  struggle,  extinction — in  short, 
all  that  is  going  on  in  Nature ;  that  the  variations 
which  in  this  interplay  are  picked  out  for  survival  are 
not  intentionally  guided ;  that  "  nothing  *  can  be 
more  hopeless  than  the  attempt  to  explain  this  simi- 
larity of  pattern  in  members  of  the  same  class  by 
utility  or  the  doctrine  of  final  causes"  (which  Dr. 


272  DARWINIANA. 

Hodge  takes  to  be  tlie  denial  of  any  such  thing  as  final 
causes) ;  and  that  the  interactions  and  processes  going 
on  which  constitute  natural  selection  may  suffice  to  ac- 
count for  the  present  diversity  of  animals  and  plants 
(primordial  organisms  being  postulated  and  time 
enough  given)  with  all  their  structures  and  adapta- 
tions— that  iSj  to  account  for  them  scientifically,  as 
science  accounts  for  other  things. 

A  good  deal  may  be  made  of  this,  but  does  it  sus- 
tain the  indictment  1  Moreover,  the  counts  of  the  in- 
dictment may  be  demurred  to.  It  seems  to  us  that 
only  one  of  the  three  points  which  Darwin  is  said  to 
deny  is  really  opposed  to  the  fourth,  which  he  is  said 
to  maintain,  except  as  concerns  the  perhaps  ambigu- 
ous word  xmintended.  Otherwise,  the  origin  of  spe- 
cies through  the  gradual  accumulation  of  variations — 
i.  e.,  by  the  addition  of  a  series  of  small  differences — 
is  surely  not  incongruous  with  their  origin  through 
'Hhe  original  intention  of  the  divine  mind"  or 
through  "  the  constant  and  everywhere  operative  ef- 
ficiency of  God."  One  or  both  of  these  Mr.  Darwin 
(being,  as  Dr.  Hodge  says,  a  theist)  must  needs  hold  to 
in  some  form  or  other ;  wherefore  he  may  be  presumed 
toehold  the  fourth  proposition  in  such  wise  as  not 
really  to  contradict  the  first  or  the  third.  The  proper 
antithesis  is  with  the  second  proposition  only,  and  the 
issue  comes  to  this :  Have  the  multitudinous  forms 
of  living  creatures,  past  and  present,  been  produced 
by  as  many  special  and  independent  acts  of  creation  at 
very  numerous  epochs  ?  Or  have  they  originated  un- 
der causes  as  natural  as  reproduction  and  birth,  and 


WHAT  IS  DARWINISM ?  273 

no  more  so,  by  the  variation  and  change  of  preceding 
into  succeeding  species  ? 

Those  who  accept  the  latter  alternative  are  evolu- 
tionists. And  Dr.  Hodge  fairly  allows  that  their 
views,  although  clearly  wrong,  may  be  genuinely  the- 
istic.  Surely  they  need  not  become  the  less  so  by  the 
discovery  or  by  the  conjecture  of  natm'al  operations 
through  which  this  diversification  and  continued  adap- 
tation of  species  to  conditions  is  brought  about. 
IN'ow,  Mr.  Darwui  thinks — and  by  this  he  is  distin- 
guished from  most  evolutionists — that  he  can  assign 
actual  natural  causes,  adequate  to  the  production  of 
the  present  out  of  the  preceding  state  of  the  animal 
and  vegetable  world,  and  so  on  backward — thus  unit- 
ing, not  indeed  the  beginning  but  the  far  past  with 
the  present  in  one  coherent  system  of  ITature.  But  in 
assigning  actual  natural  causes  and  processes,  and  ap- 
plying them  to  the  explanation  of  the  whole  case,  Mr. 
Darwin  assumes  the  obligation  of  maintaining  their 
general  sufficiency — a  task  from  which  the  numerous 
advocates  and  acceptors  of  evolution  on  the  general 
concurrence  of  probabilities  and  its  usefulness  as  a 
working  hypothesis  (with  or  without  much  conception 
of  the  manner  how)  are  happily  free.  Having  hit 
upon  a  modus  operandi  which  all  who  understand  it 
admit  will  explain  something,  and  many  that  it  will 
explain  very  much,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  Mr.  Dar- 
win will  make  the  most  of  it.  Doubtless  he  is  far 
from  pretending  to  know  all  the  causes  and  operations 
at  work  ;  he  has  already  added  some  and  restricted  the 
range  of  others ;  he  probably  looks  for  additions  to 
their  number  and  new  illustrations  of  their  efficiency ; 


274  DARWimANA. 

but  lie  is  bound  to  expect  them  all  to  fall  within  the 
category  of  what  he  calls  natural  selection  (a  most  ex- 
pansible principle),  or  to  be  congruous  with  it — that  is, 
that  they  shall  be  natural  causes.  Also — and  this  is 
the  critical  point — ^he  is  bound  to  maintain  their  suffi- 
ciency without  intervention. 

Here,  at  length,  we  reach  the  essential  difference 
between  Darwin,  as  we  understand  him,  and  Dr. 
Hodge.  The  terms  which  Darwin  sometimes  uses, 
and  doubtless  some  of  the  ideas  they  represent,  are 
not  such  as  we  should  adopt  or  like  to  defend ;  and  w^e 
may  say  once  for  all — aside  though  it  be  from  the 
present  issue — that,  in  our  opinion,  the  adequacy  of 
the  assigned  causes  to  the  explanation  of  the  phenomena 
has  not  been  made  out.  But  .we  do  not  understand 
him  to  deny  "  purpose,  intention,  or  the  cooperation 
of  God  "  in  N^ature.  This  would  be  as  gratuitous  as 
unphilosophical,  not  to  say  unscientific.  When  he 
speaks  of  this  or  that  particular  or  phase  in  the  course 
of  events  or  the  procession  of  organic  forms  as  not 
intended,  he  seems  to  mean  not  specially  and  disjunc- 
tively intended  and  not  brought  about  by  intervention. 
Purpose  in  the  whole,  as  we  suppose,  is  not  denied  but 
implied.  And  when  one  considers  how,  under  what- 
ever view  of  the  case,  the  designed  and  the  contingent 
lie  inextricably  commingled  in  this  world  of  ours,  past 
man's  disentanglement,  and  into  what  metaphysical 
dilemmas  the  attempt  at  unraveling  them  leads,  we 
cannot  greatly  blame  the  naturalist  for  relegating  such' 
problems  to  the  philosopher  and  the  theologian.  If 
charitable,  these  will  place  the  most  favorable  con- 
struction upon  attempts  to  extend  and  unify  the  opera- 


WITAT  IS  DARWimSMf  275 

tion  of  known  secondary  causes,  tliis  being  the  proper 
business  of  the  naturalist  and  physicist ;  if  wise, 
they  will  be  careful  not  to  predicate  or  suggest  the  ab- 
sence of  intention  from  what  conies  about  by  degrees 
through  the  continuous  operation  of  phj^ical  causes, 
even  in  the  organic  world,  lest,  in  their  endeavor  to  re- 
tain a  probable  excess  of  supernaturalism  in  that  realm 
of  !N^ature,  they  cut  away  the  grounds  for  recognizing 
it  at  all  in  inorganic  I^ature,  and  so  fall  into  the  same 
condemnation  that  some  of  them  award  to  the  Dar- 
winian. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  certain  that  Mr.  Darwin  would 
very  much  better  his  case,  Dr.  Hodge  being  judge,  if 
he  did  propound  some  theory  of  the  nexus  of  divine 
causation  and  natural  laws,  or  even  if  he  explicitly 
adopted  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  views  which  he  is 
charged  with  rejecting.  Either  way  he  might  meet  a 
procrustean  fate ;  and,  although  a  saving  amount  of 
theism  might  remain,  he  would  not  be  sound  or  com- 
fortable. For,  if  he  predicates  "the  constant  and 
everywhere  operative  efficiency  of  God,"  he  may 
"  lapse  into  the  same  doctrine  "  that  the  Duke  of  Ar- 
gyll and  Sir  John  Herschel  "  seem  inclined  to,"  the 
latter  of  whom  is  blamed  for  thinking  "  it  but  reason- 
able to  regard  the  force  of  gravitation  as  the  direct  or 
indirect  result  of  a  consciousness  or  will  existing  some- 
where," and  the  former  for  regarding  "it  unphilo- 
sophical  '  to  think  or  speak  as  if  the  forces  of  Nature 
were  either  independent  of  or  even  separate  from  the 
Creator's  power ' "  (page  24) :  while  if  he  falls  back 
upon  an  "  original  intention  of  the  divine  mind,"  en- 
dowing matter  with  forces  which  he  foresaw  and  in- 


276  DARWrniANA. 

tended  should  produce  sucli  results  as  tliese  contriv- 
ances in  Nature,  lie  is  told  (pages  44-46)  tliat  this 
banishes  God  from  the  world,  and  is  inconsistent  with 
obvious  facts.  And  that  because  of  its  implying  that 
"  He  never  interferes  to  guide  the  operation  of  physi- 
cal causes."  We  italicize  the  word,  for  interference 
proves  to  be  the  keynote  of  Dr.  Hodge's  system.  In- 
terference with  a  divinely  ordained  physical  ^Nature  for 
the  accomplishment  of  natural  results  !  An  unortho- 
dox friend  has  just  imparted  to  us,  with  much  mis- 
giving and  solicitude  lest  he  should  be  thought  ir- 
reverent, his  tentative  hypothesis,  which  is,  that  even 
the  Creator  may  be  conceived  to  have  improved  with 
time  and  experience !  Never  before  was  this  theory 
so  plainly  and  barely  put  before  us.  We  were  obliged 
to  say  that,  in  principle  and  by  implication,  it  was  not 
wholly  original. 

But  in  such  matters,  which  are  far  too  high  for  us, 
no  one  is  justly  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  conclu- 
sions which  another  may  draw  from  his  principles  or 
assumptions.  Dr.  Hodge's  particular  view  should  be 
gathered  from  his  own  statement  of  it : 

"In  the  external  world  there  is  always  and  everywhere  in- 
disputable evidence  of  the  activity  of  two  kinds  of  force,  the 
one  physical,  the  other  mental.  The  physical  belongs  to  matter, 
and  is  due  to  the  properties  with  which  it  has  been  endowed ; 
the  other  is  the  everywhere  present  and  ever-acting  mind  of 
God.  To  the  latter  are  to  be  referred  all  the  manifestations  of 
design  in  Nature,  and  the  ordering  of  events  in  Providence. 
This  doctrine  does  not  ignore  the  efficiency  of  second  causes ; 
it  simply  asserts  that  God  overrules  and  controls  them.  Thus 
the  Psalmist  says :  '  I  am  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made.  My 
substance  was  not  hid  from  Thee  when  I  was  made  in  secret, 


WHAT  IS  DAEWimSM?    '  277 

and  curiously  wrought  (or  embroidered)  in  the  lower  parts  of 
the  earth.  .  .  .  God  makes  the  grass  to  grow,  and  herbs  for 
the  children  of  men.'  He  sends  rain,  frost,  and  snow.  He 
controls  the  winds  and  the  waves.  He  determines  the  casting 
of  the  lot,  the  flight  of  an  arrow,  and  the  falling  of  a  sparrow  " 
(pages  43,  44). 

Far  be  it  from  us  to  object  to  this  mode  of  con- 
ceiving divine  causation,  altbougb,  like  the  two  otber 
theistic  conceptions  referred  to,  it  has  its  diflSculties, 
and  perhaps  the  difficulties  of  both.  But,  if  we  un- 
derstand it,  it  draws  an  nnnsuallj  hard  and  fast  line 
between  causation  in  organic  and  inorganic  IsTature, 
seems  to  look  for  no  manifestation  of  design  in  the 
latter  except  as  "  God  overrules  and  controls  "  second 
causes,  and,  finally,  refers  to  this  overruling  and  con- 
trolling (rather  than  to  a  normal  action  through  en- 
dowment) all  embryonic  development,  the  growth  of 
vegetables,  and  the  like.  He  even  adds,  without 
break  or  distinction,  the  sending  of  rain,  frost,  and 
snow,  the  flight  of  an  arrow,  and  the  falling  of  a  spar- 
row. Somehow  we  must  have  misconceived  the  bear- 
ing of  the  statement ;  but  so  it  stands  as  one  of  "  the 
three  ways,"  and  the  right  way,  of  "  accounting  for 
contrivances  in  Nature;"  the  other  two  being — 1. 
Their  reference  to  the  blind  operation  of  natural 
causes ;  and,  2.  That  they  were  foreseen  and  purposed 
by  God,  who  endowed  matter  with  forces  which  he 
foresaw  and  intended  should  produce  such  results,  but 
never  interferes  to  guide  their  operation. 

In  animadverting  upon  this  latter  view.  Dr.  Ilodge 
brings  forward  an  argument  against  evolution,  with 
the  examination  of  which  our  remarks  must  close : 


278  ■  DARWINIANA. 

"Palej,  indeed,  says  that  if  the  construction  of  a  watch  he 
an  undeniable  evidence  of  design,  it  would  be  a  still  more  won- 
derful manifestation  of  skill  if  a  watch  could  be  made  to  pro- 
duce other  watches,  and,  it  may  be  added,  not  only  other 
watches,  but  all  kinds  of  timepieces,  in  endless  variety.  So  it 
has  been  asked.  If  a  man  can  make  a  telescope,  why  cannot 
God  make  a  telescope  which  produces  others  like  itself?  This 
is  simply  asking  whether  matter  can  T)e  made  to  do  the  work 
of  mind.  The  idea  involves  a  contradiction.  For  a  telescope 
to  make  a  telescope  supposes  it  to  select  copper  and  zinc  in  due 
proportions,  and  fuse  them  into  brass;  to  fashion  that  brass 
into  inter-entering  tubes ;  to  collect  and  combine  the  requisite 
materials  for  the  different  kinds  of  gla^s  needed;  to  melt  them, 
grind,  fashion,  and  polish  them,  adjust  their  densities,  focal  dis- 
tances, etc.,  etc.  A  man  who  can  believe  that  brass  can  do 
all  this  might  as  well  believe  in  God"  (pp.  45,  46). 

If  Dr.  Hodge's  meaning  is,  that  matter  nncon- 
structed  cannot  do  the  work  of  mind,  he  misses  the 
point  altogether ;  for  original  construction  bj  an  in- 
telligent mind  is  given  in  the  premises.  If  he  means 
that  the  machine  cannot  originate  the  power  that 
operates  it,  this  is  conceded  by  all  except  believers  in 
perpetual  motion,  and  it  equally  misses  the  point ;  for 
the  operating  power  is  given  in  the  case  of  the  watch, 
and  implied  in  that  of  the  reproductive  telescope. 
But  if  he  means  that  matter  cannot  be  made  to  do  the 
work  of  mind  in  constructions,  machines,  or  organ- 
isms, he  is  surely  wrong.  '^  Solviticr  amhulando^'' 
vel  scribendo  /  he  confuted  his  argument  in  the  act  of 
writing  the  sentetice.  That  is  just  what  machines 
and  organisms  are  for;  and  a  consistent  Christian 
theist  should  maintain  that  it  is  what  all  matter  is  for. 
Finally,  if,  as  we  freely  suppose,  he  means  none  of 
these,  he  must  mean  (unless  we  are  much  mistaken) 


WBAT  IS  DARWINISM f  279 

that  organisms  originated  by  the  Ahnighty  Creator 
conld  not  be  endowed  with  the  power  of  producing 
similar  organisms,  or  slightly  dissimilar  organisms, 
without  successive  interventions.  Then  he  begs  the 
very  question  in  dispute,  and  that,  too,  in  the  face  of 
the  primal  command,  "  Be  fruitful  and  multiply,"  and 
its  consequences  in  every  natural  birth.  If  the  actual 
facts  could  be  ignored,  how  nicely  the  parallel  would 
run !  "  The  idea  involves  a  contradiction."  For  an 
animal  to  make  an  animal,  or  a  plant  to  make  a  plant, 
supposes  it  to  select  carbon,  hydrogen,  oxygen,  and 
nitrogen,  to  combine  these  into  cellulose  and  proto- 
plasm, to  join  with  these  some  phosphorus,  lime,  etc., 
to  build  them  into  structures  and  usefully-adjusted 
organs.  A  man  who  can  believe  that  plants  and  ani- 
mals can  do  this  (not,  indeed,  in  the  crude  way  sug- 
gested, but  in  the  appointed  way)  "might  as  well 
believe  in  God."  Yes,  verily,  and  so  he  probably 
will,  in  spite  of  all  that  atheistical  philosophers  have 
to  oifer,  if  not  harassed  and  confused  by  such  argu- 
ments and  statements  as  these. 

There  is  a  long  line  of  gradually-increasing  diver- 
gence from  the  ultra-orthodox  view  of  Dr.  Hodge 
through  those  of  such  men  as  Sir  William  Thomson, 
Herschel,  Argyll,  Owen,  Mivart,  "Wallace,  and  Dar- 
win, down  to  those  of  Strauss,  Yogt,  and  Biichner. 
To  strike  the  line  with  telling  power  and  good  effect, 
it  is  necessary  to  aim  at  the  right  place.  Excellent 
as  the  present  volume  is  in  motive  and  clearly  as  it 
shows  that  Darwinism  may  bear  an  atheistic  as  well 
as  a  theistic  interpretation,  we  fear  that  it  will  not 
contribute  much  to  the  reconcilement  of  science  and 
religion. 


2S0  LARWimAN-A. 

The  length  of  the  analysis  of  the  first  book  on  our 
list  precludes  the  notices  which  we  intended  to  take 
of  the  three  others.  Thej  are  all  the  production  of 
men  who  are  both  scientific  and  religions,  one  of  them 
a  celebrated  divine  and  writer  nnnsnally  ^^ersed  in 
natural  history.  They  all  look  upon  theories  of  evo- 
lution either  as  in  the  way  of  being  established  or  as 
not  unlikely  to  prevail,  and  they  confidently  expect 
to  lose  thereby  no  solid  ground  for  theism  or  religion. 
Mr.  St.  Clair,  a  new  writer,  in  his  "  Darwinism  and 
Design ;  or.  Creation  by  Evolution,"  takes  his  ground 
in  the  following  succinct  statement  of  his  preface : 

"  It  is  being  assumed  by  our  scientific  guides  that  the  design- 
argument  has  been  driven  out  of  the  field  by  the  doctrine  of 
evolution.  It  seems  to  be  thought  by  our  theological  teachers 
that  the  best  defense  of  the  faith  is  to  deny  evolution  in  toto^ 
and  denounce  it  as  anti-Biblical.  My  volume  endeavors  to 
show  that,  if  evolution  be  true,  all  is  not  lost ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, something  is  gained:  the  design-argument  remains  un- 
shaken, and  the  wisdom  and  beneficence  of  God  receive  new 
illustration." 

Of  his  closing  remark,  that,  so  far  as  he  knows, 
the  subject  has  never  before  been  handled  in  the  same 
way  for  the  same  pui-pose,  we  will  only  say  that  the 
handling  strikes  us  as  mamly  sensible  rather  than  as 
substantially  novel.  He  traverses  the  whole  ground 
of  evolution,  from  that  of  the  solar  system  to  "  the 
origin  of  moral  species."  He  is  clearly  a  theistie 
Darwinian  without  misgiving,  and  the  arguments  for 
that  hypothesis  and  for  its  religious  aspects  obtain 
from  him  their  most  favorable  presentation,  while  he 
combats  the  dysteleology  of  Hackel,  Biichner,  etc., 
not,  however,  with  any  remarkable  strength. 


WRAT  IS  DARWimSM?  281 

Dr.  Winchell,  chancellor  of  tlie  new  university  at 
Syracuse,  in  his  volume  just  issued  upon  the  "  Doc- 
trine of  Evolution,"  adopts  it  in  the  abstract  as 
"clearly  as  the  law  of  universal  intelligence  under 
which  complex  results  are  brought  into  existence" 
(whatever  that  may  mean),  accepts  it  practically  for 
the  inorganic  world  as  a  geologist  should,  hesitates  as 
to  the  organic  world,  and  sums  up  the  arguments  for 
the  origin  of  species  by  diversification  unfavorably 
for  the  Darwinians,  regarding  it  mainly  from  the 
geological  side.  As  some  of  our  zoologists  and  palae- 
ontologists may  have  somewhat  to  say  upon  this  matter, 
we  leave  it  for  their  consideration.  We  are  tempted 
to  develop  a  point  which  Dr.  IVinchell  incidentally 
refers  to — viz.,  how  very  modern  the  idea  of  the  inde- 
pendent creation  and  fixity  of  species  is,  and  how  well 
the  old  divines  got  on  without  it.  Dr.  Winchell  re- 
minds us  that  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
were  model  evolutionists ;  and,  where  authority  is  de- 
ferred to,  this  should  count  for  something. 

Mr.  Kingsley's  eloquent  and  suggestive  "West- 
minster Sermons,"  in  which  he  touches  here  and 
there  upon  many  of  the  topics  which  evolution  brings 
up,  has  incorporated  into  the  preface  a  paper  which 
he  read  in  1871  to  a  meeting  of  London  clergy  at 
Sion  College,  upon  certain  problems  of  natural  theol- 
ogy as  affected  by  modern  theories  in  science.  We 
may  hereafter  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  volume. 
Meanwhile,  perhaps  we  may  usefully  conclude  this 
article  with  two  or  three  short  extracts  from  it : 

"  The  God  wlio  satisfies  our  conscience  ought  more  or  less 
to  satisfy  our  reason  also.     To  teach  that  was  Butler's  mission ; 


282  DAEWINIANA. 

and  he  fulfilled  it  well.  But  it  is  a  mission  which  has  to  be 
refulfilled  again  and  again,  as  human  thought  changes,  and 
human  science  develops.  For  if,  in  any  age  or  country,  the 
God  who  seems  to  be  revealed  by  Nature  seems  also  different 
from  the  God  who  is  revealed  by  the  then-popular  religion, 
then  that  God  and  the  religion  which  tells  of  that  God  will 
gradually  cease  to  be  believed  in. 

"For  the  demands  of  reason — as  none  knew  better  than 
good  Bishop  Butler — must  be  and  ought  to  be  satisfied.  And, 
therefore,  when  a  popular  war  arises  between  the  reason  of 
any  generation  and  its  theology,  then  it  behooves  the  minis- 
ters of  religion  to  inquire,  with  all  humility  and  godly  fear,  on 
whose  side  lies  the  fault ;  whether  the  theology  which  they  ex- 
pound is  all  that  it  should  be,  or  whether  the  reason  of  those 
who  impugn  it  is  all  that  it  should  be." 

Pronouncing  it  to  be  the  duty  of  tlie  naturalist  to 
find  out  the  how  of  things,  and  of  the  natural  theo- 
logian to  find  out  the  why,  Mr.  Kingslej  continues : 

"But  if  it  be  said,  'After  all,  there  is  no  why;  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  by  doing  away  with  the  theory  of  creation,  does 
away  with  that  of  final  causes,'  let  us  answer  boldly,  'Xot  in 
the  least.'  We  might  accept  all  that  Mr.  Darwin,  all  that  Prof. 
Huxley,  all  that  other  most  able  men  have  so  learnedly  and 
acutely  written  on  physical  science,  and  yet  preserve  our  natu- 
ral theology  on  the  same  basis  as  that  on  which  Butler  and 
Paley  left  it.     That  we  should  have  to  develop  it  I  do  not  deny. 

"  Let  us  rather  look  with  calmness,  and  even  with  hope  and 
good-will,  on  these  new  theories ;  they  surely  mark  a  tendency 
toward  a  more,  not  a  less.  Scriptural  view  of  Nature. 

"  Of  old  it  was  said  by  Him,  without  whom  nothing  is  made,  « 
'  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.'  Shall  we  quarrel 
with  Science  if  she  should  show  how  these  words  are  true? 
What,  in  on5  word,  should  we  have  to  say  but  this :  '  We  know 
of  old  that  God  was  so  wise  that  he  could  make  all  things ;  but, 
behold,  he  is  so  much  wiser  than  even  that,  that  he  can  make 
all  things  make  themselves? '  " 


IX. 

CHAELES  DAEWIN  :     A    SKETCH. 

(Natttbe,  June  4,  1S74,  accompanying  a  poeteait,) 

Two  British  naturalists,  Hobert  Brown  and  Cliarles 
Darwin,  have,  more  than  any  others,  impressed  their 
influence  npon  science  in  this  nineteenth  centmy. 
Unlike  as  these  men  and  their  works  were  and  are? 
we  may  most  readily  subserve  the  present  purpose  in 
what  we  are  called  upon  to  say  of  the  latter  by  briefly 
comparing  and  contrasting  the  two. 

Robert  Brown  died  sixteen  years  ago,  full  of  years 
and  scientific  honors,  and  he  seems  to  have  finished, 
several  years  earher,  all  the  scientific  work  that  he  had 
undertaken.  To  the  other,  Charles  Darwin,  a  fair 
number  of  productive  years  may  yet  remain,  and  are 
earnestly  hoped  for.  Both  enjoyed  the  great  advan- 
tage of  being  all  their  lives  long  free  from  exacting 
professional  duties  or  cares,  and  so  were  able  in  the 
main  to  apply  themselves  to  research  without  distrac- 
tion and  according  to  their  bent.  Both,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  career,  were  attached  to  expeditions  of 
exploration  in  the  southern  hemisphere,  where  tney 
amassed  rich  stores  of  observation  and  materials,  and 
probably  struck  out,  while  in  the  field,  some  of  the 
best  ideas  which  they  subsequently  developed.  They 
worked  in  different  fields  and  upon  different  methods ; 


284  DARWINIANA. 

only  in  a  single  instance,  so  far  as  we  know,  have  they 
handled  the  same  topic ;  and  in  this  the  more  penetrat- 
ing insight  of  the  younger  naturalist  into  an  interest- 
ing general  problem  may  be  appealed  to  in  justification 
of  a  comparison  which  some  will  deem  presumptuous. 
Ee  this  as  it  may,  there  will  probably  be  little  dissent 
from  the  opinion  that  the  characteristic  trait  common 
to  the  two  is  an  unrivaled  scientific  sagacity.  In  this 
these  two  naturalists  seem  to  us,  each  in  his  way,  pre- 
eminent. There  is  a  characteristic  likeness,  too — ^un- 
derlying much  difierence — in  their  admirable  manner 
of  dealing  with  facts  closely,  and  at  first  hand,  without 
the  interposition  of  the  formal  laws,  vague  ideal  con- 
ceptions, or  "  glittering  generalities  "  which  some  phil- 
osophical naturalists  make  large  use  of. 

A  likeness  may  also  be  discerned  in  the  way  in 
which  the  works  or  contributions  of  predecessors  and 
contemporaries  are  referred  to.  The  brief  historical 
summaries  prefixed  to  many  of  Mr.  Brown's  papers 
are  models  of  judicial  conscientiousness.  And  Mr. 
Darwin's  evident  delight  at  discovering  that  some  one 
else  has  "said  his  good  things  before  him,"  or  has 
been  on  the  verge  of  uttering  them,  seemingly  equals 
that  of  making  the  discovery  himself.  It  reminds  one 
of  Goethe's  insisting  that  his  views  in  morphology 
must  have  been  held  before  him  and  must  be  some- 
w^here  on  record,  so  obvious  did  they  appear  to  him. 

Considering  the  quiet  and  retired  lives  led  by  both 
these  men,  and  the  prominent  place  they  are  likely  to 
occupy  in  the  history  of  science,  the  contrast  between 
them  as  to  contemporary  and  popular  fame  is  very  re- 
markable. While. Mr.  Brown  was  looked  up  to  with 
the  greatest  reverence  by  all  the  learned  botanists,  he 


CHARLES  DARWIN:    A  SKETCH.  285 

was  scarcely  heard  of  by  any  one  else ;  and  out  of  bot- 
any be  was  unknown  to  science  except  as  tlie  discov- 
erer of  tbe  Brownian  motion  of  minute  particles,  which 
discovery  was  promulgated  in  a  privately-printed  pam- 
phlet that  few  have  ever  seen.  Although  Mr.  Darwin 
had  been  for  twenty  years  well  and  widely  known  for 
his  "  J^aturalist's  Journal,"  his  works  on  "  Coral  Isl- 
ands,'- on  "  Yolcanic  Islands,"  and  especially  for  his 
researches  on  the  Barnacles,  it  was  not  till  about  fifteen 
years  ago  that  his  name  became  popularly  famous. 
Ever  since  no  scientific  name  has  been  so  widely  spo- 
ken. Many  others  have  had  hypotheses  or  systems 
named  after  them,  but  no  one  else  that  we  know  of  a 
department  of  bibliography.  The  nature  of  his  latest 
researches  accounts  for  most  of  the  difference,  but  not 
for  all.  The  Origin  of  Species  is  a  fascinating  topic, 
having  interests  and  connections  with  every  branch  of 
science,  natural  and  moral.  The  investigation  of  rec- 
ondite affinities  is  very  dry  and  special ;  its  questions, 
processes,  and  results  alike — although  in  part  generally 
presentable  in  the  shape  of  morphology — are  mainly, 
like  the  higher  mathematics,  unintelligible  except  to 
those  who  make  them  a  subject  of  serious  study. 
They  are  especially  so  when  presented  in  Mr.  Brown's 
manner.  Perhaps  no  naturalist  ever  recorded  the  re- 
sults of  his  investigations  in  fewer  words  and  with 
greater  precision  than  Robert  Brown :  certainly  no 
one  ever  took  more  pains  to  state  nothing  beyond  the 
precise  point  in  question.  Indeed,  we  have  sometimes 
fancied  that  he  preferred  to  enwrap  rather  than  to  ex- 
plain his  meaning ;  to  put  it  into  such  a  form  that, 
unless  you  follow  Solomon's  injunction  and  dig  for  the 

wisdom  as  for  hid  treasure,  you  may  hardly  apprehend 
13 


286        *  DARWINIANA. 

it  imtil  you  have  found  it  all  out  for  yourself,  when 
you  will  Lave  tlie  satisfaction  of  perceiving  that  Mr. 
Brown  not  only  knew  all  about  it,  but  had  put  it 
upon  record.  Very  different  from  this  is  the  way  in 
which  Mr.  Darwin  takes  his  readers  into  his  con- 
fidence, freely  displays  to  them  the  sources  of  his 
information,  and  the  worldng  of  his  mind,  and  even 
shares  with  them  all  his  doubts  and  misgivings,  while 
■  in  a  clear  exposition  he  sets  forth  the  reasons  which 
have  guided  him  to  his  conclusions.  These  you  may 
hesitate  or  decline  to  adopt,  but  you  feel  sure  that  they 
have  been  presented  with  perfect  fairness ;  and  if  you 
think  of  arguments  against  them  you  may  be  confident 
that  they  have  all  been  duly  considered  before. 

The  sagacity  which  characterizes  these  two  natu- 
ralists is  seen  in  their  success  in  finding  decisive  in- 
stances, and  their  sure  insight  into  the  meaning  of 
things.  As  an  instance  of  the  latter  on  Mr.  Darwin's 
part,  and  a  justification  of  our  venture  to  compare 
him  with  the  facile  jprincejps  hotanico'ncm,  we  will,  in 
conclusion,  allude  to  the  single  instance  in  which  they 
took  the  same  subject  in  hand.  In  his  papers  on  the 
organs  and  modes  of  fecundation  in  Orchidece  and 
Asclej)iadece,  Mr.  Brown  refers  more  than  once  to  C. 
K.  Sprengel's  almost  forgotten  work,  shows  how  the 
structure  of  the  flowers  in  these  orders  largely  requires 
the  agency  of  insects  for  their  fecundation,  and  is 
aware  that  "  in  Asclepiadece  ....  the  insect  so  read- 
ily passes  from  one  corolla  to  another  that  it  not  un- 
frequently  visits  every  flower  of  the  umbel."  He 
must  also  have  contemplated  the  transport  of  pollen 
from  plant  to  plant  by  wind  and  insects;  and  we 
know  from  another  source  that  he  looked  upon  Spren- 


CHARLES  DARWIN:   A  SKETCH.  287 

gel's  ideas  as  far  from  fantastic.  Yet,  instead  of 
taking  the  single  forward  step  wliich  now  seems  so 
obvious,  lie  even  hazarded  the  conjecture  that  the 
insect-forms  of  some  orchideous  flowers  are  intended 
to  deter  rather  than  to  attract  insects.  And  so  the 
explanation  of  all  these  and  other  extraordinary  struct- 
ures, as  well  as  of  the  arrangement  of  blossoms  in 
general,  and  even  the  very  meaning  and  need  of  sex- 
ual propagation,  w^ere  left  to  be  supplied  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win. The  aphorism  "  N^ature  abhors  a  vacuum  "  is  a 
characteristic  specimen  of  the  science  of  the  middle 
ages.  The  aphorism  '' Nature  abhors  close  fertiliza- 
tion," and  the  demonstration  of  the  principle,  belong 
to  our  age,  and  to  Mr.  Darwin.  To  have  originated 
this,  and  also  the  principle  of  natural  selection — the 
truthfulness  and  importance  of  which  are  evident  the 
moment  it  is  apprehended — and  to  have  applied  these 
principles  to  the  system  of  Nature  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make,  within  a  dozen  years,  a  deeper  impression 
upon  natural  history  than  has  been  made  since  Lin- 
naeus, is  ample  title  for  one  man^s  fame. 

There  is  no  need  of  our  givjng  any  account  or  of 
estimating  the  importance  of  such  works  as  the  ''  Ori- 
gin of  Species  by  means  of  Natural  Selection,"  the 
"  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestica- 
tion," the  "  Descent  of  Man,  and  Selection  in  relation 
to  Sex,"  and  the  "Expression  of  the  Emotions  in 
Man  and  Animals  " — a  series  to  which  we  may  hope 
other  volumes  may  in  due  time  be  added.  We  w^ould 
rather,  if  space  permitted,  attempt  an  analysis  of  the 
less  known,  but  not  less  masterly,  subsidiary  essays, 
upon  the  various  arrangements  for  insuring  cross-fer- 


288  DARWINIAJSTA. 

tilization  in  flowers,  for  the  climbing  of  plants,  and 
the  like.  These,  as  we  have  heard,  may  before  long 
be  reprinted  in  a  volume,  and  supplemented  by  some 
long-pending  but  still  unfinished  investigations  upon 
the  action  of  Dioncea  and  Drosera — a  capital  subject 
for  Mr.  Darwin's  handling. 

A  jprojyos  to  these  papers,  which  furnish  excellent 
illustrations  of  it,  let  us  recognize  Darwin's  great  ser- 
vice to  natural  science  in  bringing  back  to  it  Teleolo- 
gy ;  so  that,  instead  of  Morphology  versus  Teleology, 
we  shall  have  Morphology  wedded  to  Teleology.  To 
many,  no  doubt,  evolutionary  Teleology  comes  in  such 
a  questionable  shape  as  to  seem  shorn  of  all  its  good- 
ness ;  but  they  wiU  think  better  of  it  in  time,  when 
their  ideas  become  adjusted,  and  they  see  what  an 
impetus  the  new  doctrines  have  given  to  investiga- 
tion. They  are  much  mistaken  who  suppose  that 
Darwinism  is  only  of  speculative  importance,  and 
perhaps  transient  interest.  In  its  working  applica- 
tions it  has  proved  to  be  a  new  power,  eminently 
practical  and  fruitful. 

And  here,  again,  we  are  bound  to  note  a  striking 
contrast  to  Mr.  Brown,  greatly  as  we  revere  his 
memory.  He  did  far  less  work  than  was  justly  to  be 
expected  from  him.  Mr.  Darwin  not  only  points  out 
the  road,  but  labors  upon  it  indefatigably  and  unceas- 
ingly. A  most  commendable  noblesse  oblige  assures 
us  that  he  will  go  on  while  strength  (would  we  could 
add  health)  remains.  The  vast  amount  of  such  work 
he  has  already  accomplished  might  overtax  the  powers 
of  the  strongest.  That  it  could  have  been  done  at  all 
under  constant  infirm  health  is  most  wonderful. 


X. 

INSECTIVOEOTJS     PLANTS. 

(The  Nation,  April  2  and  9, 1874.) 

That  animals  should  feed  upon  plants  is  natural 
and  normal,  and  the  reverse  seems  impossible.  But 
the  adage,  "  Natura  non  agit  saltatim^^  has  its  appli- 
cation even  here.  It  is  the  naturalist,  rather  than 
ITature,  that  draws  hard  and  fast  lines  everywhere, 
and  marks  put  abrupt  boundaries  where  she  shades 
off  with  gradations.  However  opposite  the  parts 
which  animals  and  vegetables  play  in  the  economy  of 
the  world  as  the  two  opposed  kingdoms  of  organic 
Nature,  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  obvious  that 
they  are  not  only  two  contiguous  kingdoms,  but  are 
parts  of  one  whole — antithetical  and  complementary 
to  each  other,  indeed ;  but  such  "  thin  partitions  do 
the  bounds  divide"  that  no  definitions  yet  framed 
hold  good  without  exception.  This  is  a  world  of 
transition  in  more  senses  than  is  commonly  thought ; 
and  one  of  the  lessons  w^hich  the  philosophical  natu- 
ralist learns,  or  has  to  learn,  is,  that  differences  the 
most  wide  and  real  in  the  main,  and  the.  most  essen- 
tial, may  nevertheless  be  here  and  there  connected  or 
bridged  over  by  gradations.  There  is  a  limbo  filled 
with  organisms  which  never  rise  high  enough  in  the 


290  DAEWI^''IA^''A. 

scale  to  be  manifestly  either  animal  or  plant,  unless  it 
may  be  said  of  some  of  tliem  tliat  they  are  each  in 
turn  and  neither  long.  There  are  undoubted  animals 
which  produce  the  essential  material  of  vegetable 
fabric,  or  build  up  a  part  of  their  structure  of  it,  or 
elaborate  the  characteristic  leaf-green  which,  under 
solar  light,  assimilates  inorganic  into  organic  matter, 
the  most  distinguishing  function  of  vegetation.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  plants — microscopic,  indeed, 
but  unquestionable — which  move  spontaneously  and 
freely  around  and  among  animals  that  are  fixed  and 
rooted.  And,  to  come  without  further  parley  to  the 
matter  in  hand,  while  the  majority  of  animals  feed 
directly  upon  plants,  "  for  'tis  their  nature  to,"  there 
are  plants  which  turn  the  tables  and  feed  upon  them. 
Some,  being  parasitic  upon  living  animals,  feed  insidi- 
ously and  furtively ;  these,  although  really  cases  in 
point,  are  not  so  extraordinary,  and,  as  they  belong 
to  the  lower  orders,  they  are  not  much  regarded,  ex- 
cept for  the  harm  they  do.  There  are  others,  and 
those  of  the  highest  orders,  which  lure  or  entrap  ani- 
mals in  ways  which  may  well  excite  our  special  won- 
der— all  the  more  so  since  we  are  now  led  to  conclude 
that  they  not  only  capture  but  consume  their  prey. 

As  respects  the  two  or  three  most  notable  in- 
stances, the  conclusions  which  have  been  reached  are 
among  the  very  recent  acquisitions  of  physiological 
science.  Curiously  enough,  however,  now  that  they 
are  made  out,  it  appears  that  they  were  in  good  part 
long  ago  attained,  recorded,  and  mainly  forgotten. 
The  earlier  observations  and  siu-mises  shared  the  com- 
mon fate  of  discoveries  made  before  the  time,  or  by 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  201 

those  who  were  not  sagacious  enougli  to  bring  out. 
their  full  meaning  or  importance.  Vegetable  mor- 
phology, dimly  apprehended  by  Linnaeus,  initiated  by 
Caspar  Frederick  TVolff,  and  again,  independently 
in  successive  generations,  by  Goethe  and  by  De  Can- 
dolle,  offers  a  parallel  instance.  The  botanists  of 
Goethe's  day  could  not  see  any  sense,  advantage,  or 
practical  application,  to  be  made  of  the  proposition 
that  the  parts  of  a  blossom  answer  to  leaves ;  and  so 
the  study  of  homologies  had  long  to  wait.  Until 
lately  it  appeared  to  be  of  no  consequence  whatever 
(except,  perhaps,  to  the  insects)  whether  Drosera  and 
Sarracenia  caught  flies  or  not ;  and  even  Diongea  ex- 
cited only  unreflecting  wonder  as  a  vegetable  anomaly. 
As  if  there  were  real  anomalies  in  Nature,  and  some 
one  plant  possessed  extraordinary  powers  denied  to 
all  others,  and  (as  was  supposed)  of  no  importance  to 
itself ! 

That  most  expert  of  fly-catchers,  Dionsea,  of  which 
so  much  has  been  written  and  so  little  known  until 
lately,  came  very  near  revealing  its  secret  to  Solander 
and  Ellis  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  doubtless  to  John 
Bartram,  our  botanical  pioneer,  its  probable  discoverer, 
who  sent  it  to  Europe.  Ellis,  in  his  published  letter 
to  Linnseus,  with  which  the  history  begins,  described 
the  structure  and  action  of  the  living  trap  correctly ; 
noticed  that  the  irritability  which  called  forth  the 
quick  movement  closing  the  trap,  entirely  resided  in 
the  few  small  bristles  of  its  upper  face ;  that  this 
whole  surface  was  studded  with  glands,  which  proba- 
bly secreted  a  liquid ;  and  that  the  trap  did  not  open 
again  when  an  insect  was  captured,  even  upon  the 


292  LAEWINIANA. 

.death  of  the  captive,  altliongh  it  opened  very  soon 
when  nothing  was  caught,  or  when  the  irritation  was 
caused  by  a  bit  of  straw,  or  any  such  substance.  It 
was  Linnseus  who  originated  the  contrary  and  errone- 
ous statement,  which  has  long  prevailed  in  the  books, 
that  the  trap  reopened  when  the  fatigued  captive 
became  quiet,  and  let  it  go;  as  if  the  plant  caught 
flies  in  mere  play  and  pastime !  Linnaeus  also  omitted 
all  allusion  to  a  secreted  liquid — which  was  justifiaTjle, 
as  Ellis  does  not  state  that  he  had  actually  seen  any ; 
and,  if  he  did  see  it,  quite  mistook  its  use,  supposing 
it  to  be,  like  the  nectar  of  flowers,  a  lure  for  insects, 
a  bait  for  the  trap.  Whereas,  in  fact,  the  lure,  if 
there  be  any,  must  be  an  odor  (although  nothing  is 
perceptible  to  the  human  olfactories) ;  for  the  liquid 
secreted  by  tlfe  glands  never  appears  until  the  trap 
has  closed  upon  some  insect,  and  held  it  at  least  for 
some  hours  a  prisoner.  "Within  twenty-four  or  forty- 
eight  hours  this  glairy  liquid  is  abundant,  bathing 
and  macerating  the  body  of  the  perished  insect.  Its 
analogue  is  not  the  nectar  of  flowers,  but  the  saliva 
or  the  gastric  juice ! 

The  observations  which  compel  such  an  inference 
are  recent,  and  the  substance  of  them  may  be  briefly 
stated.  The  late  Rev.  Dr.  M.  A.  Curtis  (by  whose 
death,  two  years  ago,  we  lost  one  of  our  best  botan- 
ists, and  the  master  in  his  especial  line,  mycology), 
forty  years  and  more  ago  resided  at  Wilmington, 
IS'orth  Carolina,  in  the  midst  of  the  only  district  to 
which  the  Dionasa  is  native ;  and  he  published,  in 
1834,  in  the  first  volume  of  the  "  Journal  of  the  Bos- 
ton Society  of  Natural  History,"  by  far  the  best  ac- 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS  293 

count  of  tliis  singular  plant  wliicli  liad  then  appeared. 
He  remarks  that  "  the  little  prisoner  is  not  crushed 
and  suddenly  destroyed,  as  is  sometimes  supposed," 
for  he  had  often  liberated  "  captive  flies  and  spiders, 
which  sped  away  as  fast  as  fear  or  joy  could  hasten 
them."  But  he  neglected  to  state,  although  he  must 
have  noticed  the  fact,  that  the  two  sides  of  the  trap,- 
at  first  concave  to  the  contained  insect,  at  length  flat- 
ten and  close  down  firmly  upon  the  prey,  exerting  no 
inconsiderable  pressure,  and  insuring  the  death  of  any 
soft-bodied  insect,  if  it  had  not  already  succumbed  to 
the  confinement  and  salivation.  This  last  Dr.  Curtis 
noticed,  and  first  discerned  its  import,  although  he 
hesitated  to  pronounce  upon  its  universality.  That 
the  captured  insects  were  in  some  way  "  made  sub- 
servient to  the  nourishment  of  the  plant "  had  been 
conjectured  from  the  first.  Dr.  Curtis  "at  times 
[and  he  might  have  always  at  the  proper  time]  found 
them  enveloped  in  a  fluid  of  mucilaginous  consistence, 
which  seems  to  act  as  a  solvent,  the  insects  being  more 
or  less  consumed  in  it."  This  was  verified  and  the  di- 
gestive character  of  the  liquid  well-nigh  demonstrated 
six  or  seven  years  ago  by  Mr.  Canby,  of  "Wilmington, 
Delaware,  who,  upon  a  visit  to  the  sister-town  of 
Worth  Carolina,  and  afterward  at  his  home,  followed 
up  Dr.  Curtis's  suggestions  with  some  capital  observa- 
tions and  experiments.  These  were  published  at 
Philadelphia  in  the  tenth  volume  of  Meehan's  Gar- 
deners' Monthly,  August,  1868 ;  but  they  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  attracted  the  attention  which  they 
merited. 

The  points  which  Mr.  Canby  made  out  are,  that 


294  DARWINIANA. 

this  fluid  is  always  poured  out  around  the  captured 
insect  in  due  time, •''if  the  leaf  is  in  good  condition 
and  the  prey  suitable ; "  that  it  comes  from  the  leaf 
itself,  and  not  from  the  decomposing  insect  (for,  when 
the  trap  caught  a  plum-curculio,  the  fluid  was  ponred 
out  while  he  was  still  alive,  though  very  weak,  and 
endeavoring,  ineffectually,  to  eat  his  way  out) ;  that 
bits  of  raw  beef,  although  sometimes  rejected  after 
a  while,  were  generally  acted  upon  in  the  same  man- 
ner— i.  e.,  closed  down  upon  tightly,  slavered  with 
the  liquid,  dissolved  mainly,  and  absorbed ;  so  that,  in 
fine,  the  fluid  may  well  be  said  to  be  analogous  to  the 
gastric  juice  of  animals,  dissolving  the  prey  and  ren- 
dering it  fit  for  absorption  by  the  leaf.  Many  leaves 
remain  inactive  or  slowly  die  away  after  one  meal ; 
others  reopen  for  a  second  and  perhaps  even  a  third 
capture,  and  are  at  least  capable  of  digesting  a  second 
meal. 

Before  Mr.  Canby's  experiments  had  been  made, 
we  were  aware  that  a  similar  series  had  been  made  in 
England  by  Mr.  Darwin,  with  the  same  results,  and 
with  a  small  but  highly-curious  additional  one — 
namely,  that  the  fiuid  secreted  in  the  trap  of  Dionasa, 
like  the  gastric  juice,  has  an  acid  reaction.  Having 
begun  to  mention  unpublished  results  (too  long  al- 
lowed to  remain  so),  it  may  be  well,  under  the  circum- 
stances, to  refer  to  a  still  more  remarkable  experiment 
by  the  same  most  sagacious  investigator.  By  a  prick 
with  a  sharp  lancet  at  a  certain  point,  he  lias  been 
able,  to  paralyze  one-half  of  the  leaf-trap,  so  that  it 
remained  motionless  under  the  stimulus  to  which  the 
other  half  responded.     Such  high  and  sensitive  organ- 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  295 

ization  entails  corresponding  ailments.  Mr.  Canby 
tells  "US  that  lie  gave  to  one  of  his  Dionasa-subjects  a 
fatal  dyspepsia  by  feeding  it  with  cheese ;  and  under 
Mr.  Darwin's  hands  another  suffers  ivova.  paraplegia. 

Finally,  Dr.  Burdon-Sanderson's  experiments,  de- 
tailed at  the  last  meeting  of  the  British  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Science,  show  that  the  same 
electrical  cm*rents  are  developed  upon  the  closing  of 
the  Dionsea-trap  as  in  the  contraction  of  a  muscle. 

If  the  Yenus's  Fly-trap  stood  alone,  it  would  be 
doubly  marvelous — first,  on  account  of  its  carnivorous 
propensities,  and  then  as  constituting  a  real  anomaly  in 
organic  J^ature,  to  which  nothing  leads  up.  Before 
acquiescing  in  such  a  conclusion,  the  modern  naturalist 
would  scrutinize  its  relatives.  ITow,  the  nearest  rela- 
tives of  our  vegetable  wonder  are  the  sundews. 

While  Dionsea  is  as  local  in  habitation  as  it  is  sin- 
gular in  structure  and  habits,  the  Droseras  or  sundews 
are  widely  diffused  over  the  world  and  numerous  in 
species.  The  two  whose  captivating  habits  have  at- 
tracted attention  abound  in  bogs  all  around  the  north- 
ern hemisphere.  That  flies  are  caught  by  them  is  a 
matter  of  common  observation  ;  but  this  was  thought 
to  be  purely  accidental.  They  spread  out  from  the 
root  a  circle  of  small  leaves,  the  upper  face  of  which 
especially  is  beset  and  the  margin  fringed  with  stout 
bristles  (or  what  seem  to  be  such,  although  the  struct- 
ure is  more  complex),  tipped  by  a  secreting  gland, 
which  produces,  while  in  vigorous  state,  a  globule  of 
clear  liquid  like  a  drop  of  dew— whence  the  name, 
both  Greek  and  English.  One  expects  these  seeming 
dew-drops  to  be  dissipated  by  the  morning  sun ;  but 


296  DARWimANA. 

they  remain  unaffected.  A  touch  shows  that  the  glis- 
tening drops  are  glutinous  and  extremely  tenacious,  as 
flies  learn  to  their  cost  on  alightmg,  perhaps  to  sip  the 
tempting  liquid,  which  acts  first  as  a  decoy  and  then 
like  birdlime.  A  small  fly  is  held  so  fast,  and  in  its 
struggles  comes  in  contact  with  so  many  of  these  glu- 
tinous globules,  that  it  seldom  escapes. 

The  result  is  much  the  same  to  the  insect,  whether 
captured  in  the  trap  of  Dionsea  or  stuck  fast  to  the 
limed  bristles  of  Drosera.  As  there  are  various  plants 
upon  whose  glandular  hairs  or  glutinous  surfaces  small 
insects  are  habitually  caught  and  perish,  it  might  be 
pure  coincidence  that  the  most  effectual  arrangement 
of  the  kind  happens  to  occur  in  the  nearest  relatives 
of  Dionsea.  Roth,  a  keen  German  botanist  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  was  the  first  to  detect,  or  at  least 
to  record,  some  evidence  of  intention  in  Drosera,  and 
to  compare  its  action  with  that  of  Dionsea,  which, 
through  Ellis's  account,  had  shortly  before  been  made 
known  in  Europe.  He  noticed  the  telling  fact  that 
not  only  the  bristles  which  the  unfortunate  insect  had 
come  in  contact  with,  but  also  the  surrounding  rows, 
before  widely  spreading,  curved  inward  one  by  one, 
although  they  had  not  been  touched,  so  as  within  a 
few  hours  to  press  their  glutinous  tips  likewise  against 
the  body  of  the  captive  insect — thus  doubling  or  quad- 
rupling the  bonds  of  the  victim  and  (as  we  may  now 
suspect)  the  sm*faces  through  which  some  part  of  the 
animal  substance  may  be  imbibed.  For  Hoth  sur- 
mised that  both  these  plants  were,  in  their  way,  pre- 
daceous.  He  even  observed  that  the  disk  of  the 
Drosera-leaf  itself  often  became  concave  and  enveloped 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS  207 

tlie  prey.  These  facts,  altliougli  mentioned  now  and 
then  in  some  succeeding  works,  were  generally  forgot- 
ten, except  that  of  the  adhesion  of  small  insects  to  the 
leaves  of  sundews,  which  must  have  been  observed  in 
every  generation.  Up  to  and  even  within  a  few  years 
past,  if  any  reference  was  made  to  these  asserted  move- 
ments (as  by  such  eminent  physiologists  as  Meyen  and 
Treviranus)  it  was  to  discredit  them.  l!Tot  because 
they  are  difficult  to  verify,  but  because,  being  naturally 
thought  improbable,  it  was  easier  to  deny  or  ignore 
them.  So  completely  had  the  knowledge  of  almost  a 
century  ago  died  out  in  later  years  that,  when  the  sub- 
ject was  taken  up  anew  in  our  days  by  Mr.  Darwin,  he 
had,  as  we  remember,  to  advertise  for  it,  by  sending  a 
"note  and  query"  to  the  magazines,  asking  where  any 
account  of  the  fly-catching  of  the  leaves  of  sundew 
was  recorded. 

When  Mr.  Darwin  takes  a  matter  of  this  sort  in 
hand,  he  is  not  likely  to  leave  it  where  he  found  it. 
He  not  only  confirmed  all  Roth's  observations  as  to 
the  incm'ving  of  the  bristles  toward  and  upon  an  in- 
sect entangled  on  any  part  of  the  disk  of  the  leaf, 
but  also  found  that  they  responded  similarly  to  a  bit 
of  muscle  or  other  animal  substance,  while  to  any  par- 
ticles of  inorganic  matter  they  were  nearly  indifferent. 
To  minute  fragments  of  carbonate  of  ammonia,  how- 
ever, they  were  more  responsive.  As  these  remark- 
able results,  attained  (as  we  are  able  to  attest)  half  a 
dozen  years  ago,  remained  unpublished  (being  portions 
of  an  investigation  not  yet  completed),  it  would  have 
been  hardly  proper  to  mention  them,  were  it  not  that 
independent  observers  were  beginning  to  bring  out 


298  LARWIRIANA. 

the  same  or  similar  facts.  Mrs.  Treat,  of  New  Jersey, 
noticed  the  habitual  infolding  of  the  leaf  in  the  lon- 
ger-leaved species  of  sundew  {Ame?'ican  Journal  of 
Science  for  J^ovember,  1871),  as  was  then  thought 
for  the  first  time — Koth's  and  Withering's  observa- 
tions not  having  been  looked  up.  In  recording  this, 
the  next  year,  in  a  very  little  book,  entitled  "  How 
Plants  Behave,"  the  opportunity  was  taken  to  mention, 
in  the  briefest  way,  the  capital  discovery  of  Mr.  Dar- 
win that  the  leaves  of  Drosera  act  differently  when 
different  objects  are  placed  upon  them,  the  bristles 
closing  upon  a  particle  of  raw  meat  as  upon  a  living 
insect,  while  to  a  particle  of  chalk  or  wood '  they  are 
nearly  inactive.  The  same  facts  were  independently 
brought  out  by  Mr.  A.  TV.  Bennett  at  the  last  year's 
meeting  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Science,  and  have  been  mentioned  in  the 
journals. 

If  to  these  statements,  which  we  may  certify,  were 
added  some  far  more  extraordinary  ones,  communi- 
cated to  the  French  Academy  of  Science  in  May  last  by 
M.  Zeigler,  a  stranger  story  of  discrimination  on  the 
part  of  sundew-bristles  would  be  told.  But  it  is  safer 
to  wait  for  the  report  of  the  committee  to  which  these 
marvels  were  referred,  and  conclude  this  sufficiently 
"  strange  eventful  history "  with  some  details  of  ex- 
periments made  last  summer  by  Mrs.  Treat,  of  New 
Jersey,  and  published  in  the  December  number  of  the 
American  Naturalist.  It  is  well  to  note  that  Mrs. 
Treat  selects  for  publication  the  observations  of  one 
particular  day  in  July,  when  the  sundew-leaves  were 
unusually  active  ;  for  their  moods  vary  with  the  weath- 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  299 

er,  and  also  in  other  unaccountable  ways,  altliongli  in 
general  the  sultrier  days  are  the  most  appetizing : 

"At  fifteen  minutes  past  ten  of  the  same  day  I  placed  bits 
of  raw  beef  on  some  of  the  most  vigorous  leaves  of  Di'osera  lon- 
gifolia.  Ten  minutes  past  twelve,  two  of  the  leaves  had  folded 
around  the  beef,  hiding  it  from  sight.  Plalf-past  eleven  of  the 
same  day,  I  placed  living  flies  on  the  leaves  of  I),  longifolia.  At 
12°  48'  one  of  the  leaves  had  folded  entirely  around  its  victim, 
the  other  leaves  had  partially  folded,  and  the  flies  had  ceased  to 
struggle.  By  2°  30'  four  leaves  had  each  folded  around  a  fly. 
...  I  tried  mineral  substances — bits  of  dry  chalk,  magnesia, 
and  pebbles.  In  twenty-four  hours,  neither  the  leaves  nor 
their  bristles  had  made  any  move  like  clasping  these  articles.  I 
wet  a  piece  of  chalk  in  water,  and  in  less  than  an  hour  the  bris- 
tles were  curving  about  it,  but  soon  unfolded  again,  leaving  the 
chalk  free  on  the  blade  of  the  leaf."  Parallel  experiments  made 
on  D.  rotundifolia,  with  bits  of  beef  and  of  chalk,  gave  the  same 
results  as  to  the  action  of  the  bristles ;  while  with  a  piece  of  raw 
apple,  after  eleven  hours,  "part  of  the  bristles  were  clasping  it, 
but  not  so  closely  as  the  beef,"  and  in  twenty-four  hours  "  nearly 
all  the  bristles  were  curved  toward  it,  but  not  many  of  the 
glands  were  touching  it." 

To  make  such  observations  is  as  easy  as  it  is  inter- 
esting. Throughout  the  summer  one  has  only  to 
transfer  plants  of  Drosera  from  the  bogs  into  pots  or 
pans  filled  with  wet  moss — if  need  be,  allowing  them 
to  become  established  in  the  somewhat  changed  condi- 
tions, or  even  to  put  out  fresh  leaves — and  to  watch  their 
action  or  expedite  it  by  placing  small  flies  upon  the 
disk  of  the  leaves.  The  more  common  round-leaved 
sundew  acts  as  well  as  the  other  by  its  bristles,  and 
the  leaf  itself  is  sometimes  almost  equally  prehensile, 
although  in  a  different  way,  infolding  the  whole  bor- 


300  DARWINIANA. 

der  instead  of  the  summit  only.  Yery  cm-ious,  and 
even  somewhat  painful,  is  the  sight  when  a  fly,  alight- 
ing upon  the  central  dew-tipped  bristles,  is  held  as 
fast  as  by  a  spider's  web  ;  while  the  efforts  to  escape 
not  only  entangle  the  insect  more  hopelessly  as  they 
exhaust  its  strength,  but  call  into  action  the  surround- 
ing bristles,  which,  one  by  one,  add  to  the  number  of 
the  bonds,  each  by  itself  apparently  feeble,  but  in 
their  combination  so  effectual  that  the  fly  may  be 
likened  to  the  sleeping  Gulliver  made  fast  in  the  tiny 
but  multitudinous  toils  of  the  Liliputians.  Any- 
body who  can  believe  that  such  an  apparatus  was  not 
intended  to  captm*e  flies  might  say  the  same  of  a  spi- 
der's web. 

Is  the  intention  here  to  be  thought  any  the  less 
real  because  there  are  other  species  of  Drosera  which 
are  not  so  perfectly  adapted  for  fly-catching,  owing 
to  the  form  of  their  leaves  and  the  partial  or  total 
want  of  cooperation  of  their  scattered  bristles  ?  One 
such  species,  D.  filiformis^  the  thread-leaved  sundew, 
is  not  uncommon  in  this  country,  both  north  and  south 
of  the  district  that  Dionsea  locally  inhabits.  Its  leaves 
are  long  and  thread-shaped,  beset  throughout  with 
glutinous  gland-tipped  bristles,  but  wholly  destitute 
of  a  blade.  Fhes,  even  large  ones,  and  even  moths 
and  butterflies,  as  Mrs.  Treat  and  Mr.  Canby  affirm 
(in  the  American  Naturalist)^  get  stuck  fast  to  these 
bristles,  whence  they  seldom  escape.  Accidental  as 
such  captm^es  are,  even  these  thi^ead-shaped  leaves  re- 
spond more  or  less  to  the  contact,  somewhat  in  the 
manner  of  their  brethren.  In  Mr.  Canby's  recent  and 
simple  experiments,  made  at  Mr.  Darwin's  suggestion, 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  301 

when  a  small  fly  aliglits  upon  a  leaf  a  little  below  its 
slender  apex,  or  when  a  bit  of  crushed  fly  is  there 
affixed,  within  a  few  hours  the  tip  of  the  leaf  bends 
at  the  point  of  contact,  and  curls  over  or  around  the 
body  in  question;  and  Mrs.  Treat  even  found  that 
when  living  flies  were  pinned  at  half  an  inch  in  dis- 
tance from  the  leaves,  these  in  forty  minutes  had  bent 
their  tips  perceptibly  toward  the  flies,  and  in  less  than 
two  hours  reached  them  !  If  this  be  confirmed — and 
such  a  statement  needs  ample  confirmation — then  it 
may  be  suspected  that  these  slender  leaves  not  only  in- 
curve after  prolonged  contact,  just  as  do  the  leaf -stalks 
of  many  climbers,  but  also  make  free  and  independent 
circular  sweeps,  in  the  manner  of  twining  stems  and 
of  many  tendrils. 

Correlated  movements  like  these  indicate  pui'pose. 
When  performed  by  climbing  plants,  the  object  and 
the  advantage  are  obvious.  That  the  apparatus  and 
the  actions  of  Dionsea  and  Drosera  are  purposeless  and 
without  advantage  to  the  plants  themselves,  may  have 
been  believed  in  former  days,  when  it  was  likewise 
conceived  that  abortive  and  f unctionless  organs  were 
specially  created  "  for  the  sake  of  symmetry  "  and  to 
display  a  plan  ;  but  this  is  not  according  to  the  genius 
of  modern  science. 

In  the  cases  of  insecticide  next  to  be  considered, 
such  evidence  of  intent  is  wanting,  but  other  and  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  may  be  had,  sufficient  to  warrant 
conviction.  Sarracenias  have  hollow  leaves  in  the 
form  of  pitchers  or  trumpet-shaped  tubes,  containing 
water,  in  which  flies  and  other  insects  are  habitually 
drowned.     They  are  all  natives  of  the  eastern  side  of 


302  DARWINIANA, 

l^ortli  America,  growing  in  bogs  or  low  ground,  so 
that  tliey  cannot  be  supposed  to  need  the  water  as  such. 
Indeed,  they  secrete  a  part  if  not  all  of  it.  The  com- 
monest species,  and  the  only  one  at  the  North,  which 
ranges  from  ^Newfoundland  to  Florida,  has  a  broad- 
mouthed  pitcher  with  an  ujDright  lid,  into  which  rain 
must  needs  fall  more  or  less.  The  yellow  Sarracenia, 
with  long  tubular  leaves,  called  ^'trumpets"  in  the 
Southern  States,  has  an  arching  or  j)artly  upright  lid, 
raised  well  above  the  orifice,  so  that  some  water  may 
rain  in ;  but  a  portion  is  certainly  secreted  there,  and 
may  be  seen  bedewing  the  sides  and  collected  at  the 
bottom  before  the  mouth  opens.  In  other  species,  the 
orifice  is  so  completely  overarched  as  essentially  to 
prevent  the  access  of  water  from  without.  In  these 
tubes,  mainly  in  the  water,  flies  and  other  insects  ac- 
cumulate, perish,  and  decompose.  Flies  thrown  into 
the  open-mouthed  tube  of  the  yellow  Sarracenia,  even 
when  free  from  water,  are  unable  to  get  out — one 
hardly  sees  why,  except  that  they  cannot  fly  directly 
upward;  and  microscopic  chevaux-de-frise  of  fine, 
sharp-pointed  bristles  which  line  most  of  the  interior, 
pointing  strictly  downward,  may  be  a  more  effectual 
obstacle  to  crawling  up  the  sides  than  one  would  think 
possible.  On  the  inside  of  the  lid  or  hood  of  the  pur- 
ple Northern  species,  the  bristles  are  much  stronger ; 
but  an  insect  might  escape  by  the  front  without  en- 
countering these.  In  this  species,  the  pitchers,  how- 
ever, are  so  well  supplied  with  water  that  the  insects 
which  somehow  are  most  abundantly  attracted  thither 
are  effectually  drowned,  and  the  contents  all  summer 
long  are  in  the  condition  of  a  rich  liquid  manure. 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  303 

That  tlie  tubes  or  pitcliers  of  tlie  Soutliern  species 
are  equally  attractive  and  fatal  to  flies  is  well  known. 
Indeed,  tliejare  said  to  be  taken  into  houses  and  used 
as  fly-traps.  There  is  no  perceptible  odor  to  draw  in- 
sects, except  what  arises  from  the  decomposition  of 
macerated  victims ;  nor  is  any  kind  of  lure  to  be  de- 
tected at  the  mouth  of  the  pitcher  of  the  common 
purple-flowered  species.  Some  incredulity  was  there- 
fore natural  when  it  was  stated  by  a  Carolinian  corre- 
spondent (Mr.  B.  F.  Grady)  that  in  the  long-leaved, 
yellow-flowered  species  the  lid  just  above  the  mouth 
of  the  tubular  pitcher  habitually  secretes  drops  of  a 
sweet  and  viscid  liquid,  which  attracts  flies  and  appar- 
ently intoxicates  them,  since  those  that  sip  it  soon 
become  unsteady  in  gait  and  mostly  fall  irretrievably 
into  the  well  beneath.  But  upon  cultivating  plants 
of  this  species,  obtained  for  the  purpose,  the  existence 
of  this  lure  was  abundantly  verified ;  and,  although 
we  cannot  vouch  for  its  inebriating  quality,  we  can 
no  longer  regard  it  as  unlikely. 

No  sooner  was  it  thus  ascertained  that  at  least  one 
species  of  Sarracenia  allures  flies  to  their  ruin  than  it 
began  to  appear  that — just  as  in  the  case  of  Drosera — 
most  of  this  was  a  mere  revival  of  obsolete  knowledge. 
The  "  insect-destroying  process  "  was  known  and  well 
described  sixty  years  ago,  the  part  played  by  the  sweet 
exudation  indicated,  and  even  the  intoxication  per- 
haps hinted  at,  although  evidently  little  thought  of  in 
those  ante-temperance  days.  Dr.  James  Macbride,  of 
South  Carolina — the  early  associate  of  Elliott  in  his 
"  Botany  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,"  and  to 
whose  death,  at  the  age  of  thirty-three,  cutting  short 


304  BARWINIANA. 

a  life  of  remarkable  promise,  the  latter  toucliingly 
alludes  in  the  preface  to  his  second  volume — sent  to 
Sir  James  Edward  Smith  an  account  of  his  observa- 
tions npon  this  subject,  made  in  1810  and  the  follow- 
ing years.  This  was  read  to  the  Linnggan  Society  in 
1815,  and  published  in  the  twelfth  volume  of  its 
*'  Transactions."  From  this  forgotten  paper  (to  which 
attention  has  lately  been  recalled)  we  cull  the  follow- 
ing extracts,  premising  that  the  observations  mostly 
relate  to  a  third  species,  Sarracenia  adunca,  alias 
vai'iolaris,  which  is  said  to  be  the  most  efficient  fly- 
catcher of  the  kind : 

"  If,  in  the  months  of  May,  June,  or  July,  when  the  leaves 
of  those  plants  perform  their  extraordinary  functions  in  the 
greatest  perfection,  some  of  them  be  removed  to  a  house  and 
fixed  in  an  erect  position,  it  will  soon  he  perceived  that  flies  are 
attracted  by  them.  These  insects  immediately  approach  the 
fauces  of  the  leaves,  and,  leaning  over  their  edges,  appear  to  sip 
with  eagerness  something  from  their  internal  surfaces.  In  this 
position  they  linger ;  but  at  length,  allured  as  it  would  seem  by 
the  pleasure  of  taste,  they  enter  the  tubes.  The  fly  which  has 
thus  changed  its  situation  will  be  seen  to  stand  unsteadily ;  it 
totters  for  a  few  seconds,  slips,  and  falls  to  the  bottom  of  the 
tube,  where  it  is  either  drowned  or  attempts  in  vain  to  ascend 
against  the  points  of  the  hairs.     The  fly  seldom  takes  wing  in 

its  fall  and  escapes In  a  house  much  infested  with  flies, 

this  entrapment  goes  on  so  rapidly  that  a  tube  is  filled  in  a  few 
hours,  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  add  water,  the  natural 
quantity  being  insufficient  to  drown  the  imprisoned  insects. 
The  leaves  of  8.  adunca  and  rubra  [a  fourth  species]  might  well 
be  employed  as  fly-catchers;  indeed,  I  am  credibly  informed 
they  are  in  some  neighborhoods.  The  leaves  of  the  S.flava 
[the  species  to  which  our  foregoing  remarks  mainly  relate],  al- 
though they  are  very  capacious,  and  often  grow  to  the  height  of 


mSEGTIYOROUS  PLANTS,  305 

three  feet  or  more,  are  never  found  to  contain  so  many  insccta 
as  those  of  the  species  above  mentioned. 

"  The  cause  which  attracts  flies  is  evidently  a  sweet,  viscid 
substance  resembling  honey,  secreted  by  or  exuding  from  the 
internal  surface  of  the  tube.  .  .  .  From  the  margin,  where  it 
commences,  it  does  not  extend  lower  than  one-fourth  of  an  inch. 

"  The  falling  of  the  insect  as  soon  as  it  enters  the  tube  is 
wholly  attributable  to  the  downward  or  inverted  position  of  the 
hairs  of  the  internal  surface  of  the  leaf.  At  the  bottom  of  a  tube 
split  open,  the  hairs  are  plainly  discernible  pointing  downward ; 
as  the  eye  ranges  upward,  they  gradually  become  shorter  and  at- 
tenuated, till  at  or  just  below  the  surface  covered  by  the  bait 
they  are  no  longer  perceptible  to  the  naked  eye  nor  to  the  most 
delicate  touch.  It  is  here  that  the  fly  cannot  take  a  hold  suflTi- 
ciently  strong  to  support  itself,  but  falls.  The  inability  of  in- 
sects to  crawl  up  against  the  points  of  the  hairs  I  have  often 
tested  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner." 

From  the  last  paragraph  it  may  be  inferred  that  Dr. 
Macbride  did  not  suspect  any  inebriating  property  in 
the  nectar,  and  in  a  closing  note  there  is  a  conjecture 
of  an  impalpable  loose  powder  in  S.  flava^  at  the  place 
where  the  fly  stands  so  unsteadily,  and  from  which  it 
is  supposed  to  slide.  "We  incline  to  take  Mr.  Grady's 
view  of  the  case. 

The  complete  oblivion  into  which  this  paper  and 
the  whole  subject  had  fallen  is  the  more  remarkable 
when  it  is  seen  that  both  are  briefly  but  explicitly 
referred  to  in  Elliott's  book,  with  which  botanists 
are  familiar. 

It  is  not  so  wonderful  that  the  far  earlier  allusion 
to  these  facts  by  the  younger  Bartram  should  have 
been  overlooked  or  disregarded.  With  the  genuine 
love  of  Nature  and  fondness  for  exploration,  William 
Bartram  did  not  inherit  the  simplicity  of  his  father, 


306  DARWINIANA. 

tlie  earliest  native  botanist  of  tliis  country.  Fine 
writing  was  his  foible ;  and  the  preface  to  his  well- 
known  "  Travels  "  (published  at  Philadelphia  in  1791) 
is  its  full-blowm  illustration,  sometimes  perhaps  de- 
serving the  epithet  which  he  applies  to  the  palms  of 
Florida — that  of  pomposity.  In  this  preface  he  de- 
clares that  "  all  the  Sarracenias  are  insect-catchers,  and 
so  is  the  Drosera  rotundifolia.  Whether  the  insects 
caught  in  their  leaves,  and  which  dissolve  and  mix 
with  the  fluid,  serve  for  aliment  or  support  to  these 
kind  of  plants  is  doubtful,"  he  thinks,  but  he  should 
be  credited  with  the  suggestion.  In  one  sentence  he 
speaks  of  the  quantities  of  insects  which,  "  being  in- 
vited down  to  sip  the  mellifluous  exuvia  from  the  in- 
terior surface  of  the  tube,  where  they  inevitably  per- 
ish," being  prevented  from  returning  by  the  stiff  hairs 
all  pointing  downward.  This,  if  it  refers  to  the  sweet 
secretion,  would  place  it  below,  and  not,  as  it  is,  above 
the  bristly  surface,  while  the  liquid  below,  charged 
with  decomposing  insects,  is  declared  in  an  earlier 
sentence  to  be  "  cool  and  animating,  limpid  as  the 
morning  dew."  Bartram  was  evidently  writing  from 
memory ;  and  it  is  very  doubtful  if  he  ever  distinctly 
recognized  the  sweet  exudation  which  entices  in- 
sects. 

Why  should  these  plants  take  to  organic  food  more 
than  others  ?  If  we  cannot  answer  the  question,  we 
may  make  a  probable  step  toward  it.  For  plants  that 
are  not  parasitic,  these,  especially  the  sundews,  have 
much  less  than  the  ordinary  amount  of  chlorophyll— 
that  is,  of  the  universal  leaf -green  upon  which  the  for- 
mation of  organic  matter  out  of  inorganic  materials 


INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS.  307 

depends.     These  take  it  instead  of  making  it,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent. 

What  is  the  bearing  of  these  remarkable  adap- 
tations and  operations  upon  doctrines  of  evokition  ? 
There  seems  here  to  be  a  field  on  which  the  specific 
creationist,  the  evolutionist  with  design,  and  the  ne- 
cessary evolutionist,  may  fight  out  an  interesting,  if 
not  decisive,  "  triangular  duel." 


XI. 

INSECTIVOEOUS   AND   CLIMBING   PLANTS/ 
(Thb  Nation,  January  6  and  13,  1876.) 

"  MiNEEALS  grow ;  vegetables  grow  and  live ;  ani- 
iKals  grow,  live,  and  feel ; "  this  is  the  well-worn,  not 
to  say  out-worn,  diagnosis  of  the*  three  kingdoms  by 
Linnceus.  It  must  be  said  of  it  that  the  agreement 
indicated  in  the  first  couplet  is  unreal,  and  that  the 
distinction  declared  in  the  second  is  evanescent.  Crys- 
tals do  not  grow  at  all  in  the  sense  that  plants  and 
animals  grow.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  response  to 
external  impressions  by  special  movements  is  evidence 
of  feeling,  vegetables  share  this  endowment  with  ani- 
mals ;  while,  if  conscious  feeling  is  meant,  this  can  be 
afiirmed  only  of  the  higher  animals.  What  appears  to 
remain  true  is,  that  the  difference  is  one  of  successive 
addition.  That  the  increment  in  the  organic  world  is 
of  many  steps;   that  in  the  long  series  no  absolute 

1 "  Insectivorous  Plants.  By  Charles  Darwin,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S."  With 
Illustrations.  London:  John  Murray,  ISYS.  Pp.462.  New  York: 
D.  Appleton  &  Co. 

"  The  Movements  and  Habits  of  Climbing  Plants.  By  Charles  Dar- 
win, M.  A,,  F.  R.  S.,  etc."  Second  Edition,  revised,  with  Illustrations. 
London :  John  Murray.  1875.  Pp.  208.  New  York :  D.  Appleton  & 
Co. 


mSEGTIVOROUS  AND   CLIMBING  PLANTS.    309 

lines  separate,  or  have  always  separated,  organisms 
which,  barely  respond  to  impressions  from  those  wliich 
more  actively  and  variously  respond,  and  even  from 
those  that  consciously  so  respond — this,  as  we  all  know, 
is  what  the  author  of  the  works  before  us  has  under- 
taken to  demonstrate.  Without  reference  here  either 
to  that  part  of  the  series  with  which  man  is  connected, 
and  in  some  sense  or  other  forms  a  part  of,  or  to  that 
lower  limho  where  the  two  organic  kingdoms  appar- 
ently merge — or  whence,  in  evolutionary  phrase,  they 
have  emerged — Mr.  Darwin,  in  the  present  volumes, 
directs  our  attention  to-  the  behavior  of  the  highest 
plants  alone.  He  shows  that  some  (and  he  might  add 
that  all)  of  them  execute  movements  for  their  own 
advantage,  and  that  some  capture  and  digest  living 
prey.  When  plants  are  seen  to  move  and  to  devour, 
what  faculties  are  left  that  are  distinctively  animal  ? 

As  to  insectivorous  or  otherwise  carnivorous  plants, 
we  have  so  recently  here  discussed  this  subject — ^before 
it  attained  to  all  this  new  popularity — that  a  brief  ac- 
count of  Mr.  Darwin's  investigation  may  suffice.^     It 

^  The  Nation^  Nos.  457,  458,  1874.  It  was  in  these  somewhat  light 
and  desultory,  but  substantially  serious,  articles  that  some  account  of 
Mr.  Darwin's  observations  upon  the  digestive  powers  of  Drosera  and 
Dioncea  first  appeared ;  in  fact,  their  leading  motive  was  to  make  suf- 
ficient reference  to  his  then  unpublished  discoveries  to  guard  against 
expected  or  possible  claims  to  priority.  Dr.  Burdon-Sanderson's  lect- 
ure, and  the  report  in  Nature,  which  first  made  them  known  in  Eng- 
land, appeared  later. 

A  mistake  on  our  part  in  the  reading  of  a  somewhat  ambiguous 
sentence  in  a  letter  led  to  the  remark,  at  the  close  of  the  first  of  those 
articles  (p.  295),  that  the  leaf-trap  of  Dioncea  had  been  paralyzed  on 
one  side  in  consequence  of  a  dexterous  puncture.  What  was  commu- 
nicated reallv  related  to  Drosera. 
14 


310  DARWimANA. 

is  full  of  interest  as  a  physiological  research,  and  is  a 
model  of  its  kind,  as  well  for  the  simplicity  and  direct- 
ness of  the  means  employed  as  for  the  clearness  with 
which  the  results  are  brought  out — results  which  any 
one  may  verify  now  that  the  way  to  them  is  pointed 
out,  and  which,  surprising  as  they  are,  lose  haK  their 
wonder  in  the  ease  and  sureness  with  which  they  seem 
to  have  been  reached. 

Kather  more  than  half  the  volume  is  devoted  to 
one  subject,  the  round-leaved  sundew  {Drosera  rotun- 
difolia),  a  rather  common  plant  in  the  northern  tem- 
perate zone.  That  flies  stick  fast  to  its  leaves,  being 
limed  by  the  tenacious  seeming  dew-di'o^^s  which  stud 
its  upper  face  and  margins,  had  long  been  noticed  in 
Europe  and  in  this  country.  We  have  heard  hunters 
and  explorers  in  our  IS^orthern  woods  refer  with  satis- 
faction to  the  fate  which  in  this  way  often  befalls  one 
of  their  plagues,  the  black  fly  of  early  summer.  And 
it  was  known  to  some  observant  botanists  in  the  last 
century,  although  forgotten  or  discredited  in  this,  that 
an  insect  caught  on  the  viscid  glands  it  has  happened 
to  alight  upon  is  soon  fixed  by  many  more — not  mere- 
ly in  consequence  of  its  struggles,  but  by  the  sponta- 
neous incurvation  of  the  stalks  of  surrounding:  and 
untouched  glands ;  and  even  the  body  of  the  leaf  had 
been  observed  to  incmwe  or  become  cup-shaped  so  as 
partly  to  involve  the  captive  insect. 

Mr.  Darwin's  peculiar  investigations  not  only  con- 
firm all  this,  but  add  greater  wonders.  They  relate  to 
the  sensitiveness  of  these  tentacles^  as  he  prefers  to  call 
them,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  is  manifested ;  their 
power  of  absorption ;  their  astonishing  discernment  of 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.   311 

the  presence  of  animal  or  other  soluble  azotized  mat- 
ter, even  in  quantities  so  minute  as  to  rival  tlie  spec- 
troscope— that  most  exquisite  instrument  of  modern 
research — in  delicacy ;  and,  finally,  they  establish  the 
fact  of  a  true  digestion,  in  all  essential  respects  similar 
to  that  of  the  stomach  of  animals. 

First  as  to  sensitiveness  and  movement.  Sensi- 
tiveness is  manifested  by  movement  or  change  of  form 
in  response  to  an  external  impression.  The  sensitive- 
ness in  the  sundew  is  all  in  the  gland  which  surmounts 
the  tentacle.  To  incite  movement  or  other  action,  it 
is  necessary  that  the  gland  itself  should  be  reached. 
Anything  laid  on  the  surface  of  the  viscid  drop,  the 
spherule  of  clear,  glairy  liquid  which  it  secretes,  pro- 
duces no  effect  unless  it  sinks  through  to  the  gland ; 
or  unless  the  substance  is  soluble  and  reaches  it  in 
solution,  which,  in  the  case  of  certain  substances,  has 
the  same  effect.  But  the  glands  themselves  do  not 
move,  nor  does  any  neighboring  portion  of  the  ten- 
tacle. The  outer  and  longer  tentacles  bend  inward 
(toward  the  centre  of  the  leaf)  promptly,  when  the 
gland  is  irritated  or  stimulated,  sweeping  through  an 
arc  of  180°  or  less,  or  more — the  quickness  and  the 
extent  of  the  inflection  depending,  in  equally  vigorous 
leaves,  upon  the  amount  of  irritation  or  stimuLition, 
and  also  upon  its  kind.  A  tentacle  with  a  particle  of 
raw  meat  on  its  gland  sometimes  visibly  begins  to 
bend  in  ten  seconds,  becomes  strongly  incurved  in  five 
minutes,  and  its  tip  reaches  the  centre  of  the  leaf  in 
half  an  hour ;  but  this  is  a  case  of  extreme  rapidity. 
A  particle  of  cinder,  chalk,  or  sand,  will  also  incite 
the  bending,  if  actually  brought  in  contact  with  the 


312  DARWINIANA. 

gland,  not  merely  resting  on  the  di'op  ;  but  the  inflec- 
tion is  then  much  less  pronounced  and  more  tran- 
sient. Even  a  bit  of  thin  human  hair,  only  -g-gVo  ^^ 
an  inch  in  length,  weighing  only  the  ^g^^q  of  a 
grain,  and  largely  supported  by  the  viscid  secretion, 
suffices  to  induce  movement ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
one  or  two  momentary,  although  rude,  touches  with  a 
hard  object  produce  no  effect,  although  a  repeated 
touch  or  the  slightest  pressure,  such  as  that  of  a  gnat's 
foot,  prolonged  for  a  short  time,  causes  bending.  The 
seat  of  the  movement  is  wholly  or  nearly  confined  to 
a  portion  of  the  lower  part  of  the  tentacle,  above  the 
base,  where  local  irritation  produces  not  the  slighest 
effect.  The  movement  takes  place  only  in  response 
to  some  impression  made  upon  its  own  gland  at  the 
distant  extremity,  or  upon  other  glands  far  more  re- 
mote. For  if  one  of  these  members  suffers  irritation 
the  others  sympathize  with  it.  Yery  noteworthy  is 
the  correlation  between  the  central  tentacles,  upon 
which  an  insect  is  most  likely  to  alight,  and  these  ex- 
ternal and  larger  ones,  which,  in  proportion  to  their 
distance  from  the  centre,  take  the  larger  share  in  the 
movement.  The  shorter  central  ones  do  not  move  at 
all  when  a  bit  of  meat,  or  a  crushed  fly,  or  a  particle 
of  a  salt  of  ammonia,  or  the  like,  is  placed  upon 
them ;  but  they  transmit  their  excitation  across  the 
leaf  to  the  surrounding  tentacles  on  all  sides ;  and 
they,  although  absolutely  untouched,  as  they  succes- 
sively receive  the  mysterious  impulse,  bend  strongly 
inward,  just  as  they  do  when  their  own  glands  are  ex- 
cited. Whenever  a  tentacle  bends  in  obedience  to  an 
impulse  from  its  own  gland,  the  movement  is  always 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS,    313 

toward  tlie  centre  of  the  leaf;  and  this  also  takes 
place,  as  we  have  seen,  when  an  exciting  object  is 
lodged  at  the  centre.  But  when  the  object  is  placed 
upon  either  half  of  the  leaf,  the  impulse  radiating 
thence  causes  all  the  surrounding  untouched  ten- 
tacles to  bend  with  precision  toward  the  point  of 
excitement,  even  the  central  tentacles,  which  are  mo- 
tioiiless  when  themselves  charged,  now  responding 
to  the  call.  The  inflection  which  follows  mechanical 
irritation  or  the  presence  of  any  inorganic  or  insoluble 
body  is  transient ;  that  which  follows  the  application 
of  organic  matter  lasts  longer,  more  or  less,  according 
to  its  nature  and  the  amount ;  but  sooner  or  later  the 
tentacles  resume  their  foimer  position,  their  glands 
glisten  anew  with  fresh  secretion,  and  they  are  ready 
to  act  again. 

As  to  how  the  impulse  is  originated  and  propa- 
gated, and  how  the  movements  are  made,  compara- 
tively simple  as  the  structure  is,  we  know  as  little  as 
we  do  of  the  nature  of  nervous  impulse  and  muscular 
motion.  But  two  things  Mr.  Darwin  has  wellnigh 
made  out,  both  of  them  by  means  and  observations 
so  simple  and  direct  as  to  command  our  confidence, 
although  they  are  contrary  to  the  prevalent  teaching. 
First,  the  transmission  is  through  the  ordinaiy  cellular 
tissue,  and  not  through  what  are  called  the  fibrous  or 
vascular  bundles.  Second,  the  movement  is  a  vital 
one,  and  is  effected  by  contraction  on  the  side  toward 
which  the  bending  takes  place,  rather  than  by  tur- 
gescent  tension  of  the  opposite  side.  The  tentacle  is 
pulled  over  rather  than  pushed  over.  So  far  all  ac- 
cords wdth  muscular  action. 


3U  DAEWmiANA. 

The  oj^eration  of  this  fly-catcliing  apparatus,  in 
any  case,  is  plain.  If  the  insect  alights  upon  the  disk 
of  the  leaf,  the  viscid  secretion  holds  it  fast — at  least, 
an  ordinary  fly  is  unable  to  escape — its  struggles  only 
increase  the  number  of  glands  involved  and  the 
amount  of  excitement ;  this  is  telegraphed  to  the  sur- 
rounding and  successively  longer  tentacles,  which 
bend  over  in  succession,  so  that  within  ten  to  thirtv 
hours,  if  the  leaf  is  active  and  the  fly  large  enough, 
every  one  of  the  glands  (on  the  average,  nearly  two 
hundred  in  number)  will  be  found  applied  to  the  body 
of  the  insect.  If  the  insect  is  small,  and  the  lodg- 
ment toward  one  side,  only  the  neighboring  tentacles 
may  take  part  in  the  capture.  If  two  or  three  of 
the  strong  marginal  tentacles  are  first  encountered, 
their  prompt  inflection  carries  the  intruder  to  the 
centre,  and  presses  it  down  upon  the  glands  which 
thickly  pave  the  floor;  these  notify  all  the  surrounding 
tentacles  of  the  capture,  that  they  may  share  the 
spoil,  and  the  fate  of  that  victim  is  even  as  of  the  flrst. 
A  bit  of  meat  or  a  cinished  insect  is  treated  in  the 
game  way. 

This  language  implies  that  the  animal  matter  is  in 
some  way  or  other  discerned  by  the  tentacles,  and  is 
appropriated.  Formerly  there  was  only  a  presump- 
tion of  this,  on  the  general  ground  that  such  an  organ- 
ization could  hardly  be  purposeless.  Yet,  while  such 
expressions  were  natural,  if  not  unavoidable,  they 
generally  were  used  by  those  familiar  with  the  facts 
in  a  half-serious,  half -metaphorical  sense.  Thanks  to 
Mr.  Darwin's  investigations,  they  may  now  be  used  in 
simplicity  and  seriousness. 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.     315 

That  the  glands  secrete  tlie  glairy  liquid  of  the 
drop  is  evident,  not  only  from  its  nature,  but  from  its 
persistence  through  a  whole  day's  exposure  to  a  sum- 
mer sun,  as  also  from  its  renewal  after  it  has  been  re- 
moved, dried  up,  or  absorbed.  That  they  absorb  as 
well  as  secrete,  and  that  the  whole  tentacle  may  be 
profoundly  affected  thereby,  are  proved  by  the  differ- 
ent effects,  in  kind  and  degree,  which  follow  the  appli- 
cation of  different-  substances.  Drops  of  rain-water, 
like  single  momentary  touches  of  a  solid  body,  pro- 
duce no  effect,  as  indeed  they  conld  be  of  no  advan- 
tage ;  but  a  little  carbonate  of  ammonia  in  the  water, 
or  an  infusion  of  meat,  not  only  causes  inflection,  but 
promptly  manifests  its  action  "upon  the  contents  of 
the  cells  of  which  the  tentacle  is  constructed.  These 
cells  are  suflSciently  transparent  to  be  viewed  under 
the  microscope  without  dissection  or  other  interfer- 
ence ;  and  the  change  which  takes  place  in  the  fluid 
contents  of  these  cells,  when  the  gland  above  has  been 
acted  upon,  is  often  visible  through  a- weak  lens,  or 
sometimes  even  by  the  naked  eye,  although  liigher 
powers  are  required  to  discern  what  actually  takes 
place.  This  change,  which  Mr.  Darwin  discovered, 
and  turns  to  much  account  in  his  researches,  he  terms 
"aggregation  of  the  protoplasm."  When  untouched 
and  quiescent,  the  contents  appear  as  an  homogeneous 
purple  fluid.  When  the  gland  is  acted  upon,  minute 
purple  particles  appear,  suspended  in  the  now  colorless 
or  almost  colorless  fluid  ;  and  this  change  appears  first 
in  the  cells  next  the  gland,  and  then  in  those  next  be- 
neath, traveling  down  the  whole  length  of  the  tenta- 
cle.    When  the  action  is  slight,  this  appearance  does 


316  DARWmiANA. 

not  last  long;  the  particles  of  "aggregated  proto- 
plasm "  redissolve,  tlie  process  of  redissolution  travel- 
ing upward  from  tlie  base  of  the  tentacle  to  the  gland 
in  a  reverse  direction  to  that  of  the  .aggregation. 
Whenever  the  action  is  more  prolonged  or  intense,  as 
when  a  bit  of  meat  or  crushed  fly,'  or  a  fitting  solu- 
tion, is  left  upon  the  gland,  the  aggregation  proceeds 
further,  so  that  the  whole  protoplasm  of  each  cell  con- 
denses into  one  or  two  masses,  or  into  a  single  mass 
which  will  often  separate  into  two,  which  afterward 
reunite ;  indeed,  they  incessantly  change  their  forms 
and  positions,  being  never  at  rest,  although  their 
movements  are  rather  slow.  In  appearance  and  move- 
ments they  are  very  like  amoebae  and  the  white  cor- 
puscles of  the  blood.  Their  motion,  along  with  the 
streaming  movement  of  rotation  in  the  layer  of  white 
granular  protoplasm  that  flows  along  the  walls  of  the 
cell,  under  the  high  powers  of  the  microscope  "  pre 
sents  a  wonderful  scene  of  vital  activity."  This  con- 
tinues  while  the  tentacle  is  inflected  or  the  gland  fed 
by  animal  matter,  but  vanishes  by  dissolution  when 
the  work  is  over  and  the  tentacle  straightens.  That, 
absoi'ption  takes  place,  and  matter  is  conveyed  from 
cell  to  cell,  is  well  made  out,  especially  by  the  exper- 
iments with  carbonate  of  ammonia.  ^N^evertheless, 
this  aggregation  is  not  dependent  upon  absorption,  for 
it  equally  occurs  from  mechanical  irritation  of  the 
gland,  and  always  accompanies  inflection,  however 
caused,  though  it  may  take  place  without  it.  This  is 
also  apparent  from  the  astonishingly  minute  quantity 
of  certain  substances  which  sufiices  to  produce  sensible 
inflection  and  aggregation — such,  for  instance,  as  the 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    317 

'2000^000  ^^  even  tlie  -^.^-^^^  of  a  grain  of  phos- 
phate or  nitrate  of  ammonia  ! 

By  varied  experiments  it  was  found  that  the  nitrate 
of  ammonia  was  more  powerful  than  the  carbonate, 
and  the  phosphate  more  powerful  than  the  nitrate, 
this  result  being  intelligible  from  the  difference  in  the 
amount  of  nitrogen  in.  the  first  two  salts,  and  from 
the  presence  of  phosphorus  in  the  third.  There  is 
nothing  surprising  in  the  absorption  of  such  extremely 
dilute  solutions  by  a  gland.  As  our  author  remarks  : 
''All  physiologists  admit  that  the  roots  of  plants  ab- 
sorb the  salts  of  ammonia  brought  to  them  by  the  rain ; 
and  fourteen  gallons  of  rain-water  [i.  e.,  early  rain- 
water] contain  a  grain  of  ammonia ;  therefore,  only  a 
little  more  than  twice  as  much  as  in  the  weakest  solu- 
tion employed  by  me.  The  fact  which  appears  truly 
wonderful  is  that  the  g  o  o  o^o  o  o  o   ^^   ^   grain   of   the 


1 


phosphate  of  ammonia,  including  less  than  30000000 
of  efiicient  matter  [if  the  water  of  crystallization 
is  deducted],  when  absorbed  by  a  gland,  should  in- 
duce some  change  in  it  which  leads  to  a  motor  im- 
pulse being  transmitted  down  the  whole  length  of 
the  tentacle,  causing  its  basal  part  to  bend,  often 
through  an  angle  of  180°."  But  odoriferous  particles 
which  act  upon  the  nerves  of  anunals  must  be  infinite- 
ly smaller,  and  by  these  a  dog  a  quarter  of  a  mile  to 
the  leeward  of  a  deer  perceives  his  presence  by  some 
change  in  the  olfactory  nerves  transmitted  through 
them  to  tlie  brain. 

When  Mr.  Darwin  obtained  these  results,  fourteen 
years  ago,  he  could  claim  for  Drosera  a  power  and 
delicacy  in  the  detection  of  minute  quantities  of  a  sub- 


318  DARWINIANA. 

stance  far  beyond  the  resources  of  the  most  skillful 
chemist ;  but  in  a  foot-note  he  admits  that  "  now  the 
spectroscope  has  altogether  beaten  Drosera  /  for,  ac- 
cording to  Biinsen  and  Kirchhoff,  probably  less  than 
t^®  ^00000000  of  a  grain  of  sodium  can  be  thus 
detected." 

Finally,  that  this  highly-sensitive  and  active  living 
organism  absorbs,  will  not  be  doubted  when  it  is 
proved  to  digest,  that  is,  to  dissolve  otherwise  insol- 
uble animal  matter  by  the  aid  of  s^Decial  secretions. 
That  it  does  this  is  now  past  doubting.  In  the  first 
place,  when  the  glands  are  excited  they  pour  forth  an 
increased  amount  of  the  ropy  secretion.  This  occurs 
directly  when  a  bit  of  meat  is  laid  upon  the  central 
glands ;  and  the  influence  which  they  transmit  to  the 
long-stalked  marginal  glands  causes  them,  while  incurv- 
ing their  tentacles,  to  secrete  more  copiously  long  be- 
fore they  have  themselves  touched  anything.  The 
primary  fluid,  secreted  without  excitation,  does  not  of 
itself  digest.  But  the  secretion  under  excitement 
changes  in  l!Tatm'e  and  becomes  acid.  So,  according 
to  Schiff,  mechanical  irritation  excites  the  glands  of 
the  stomach  to  secrete  an  acid.  In  both  this  acid  ap- 
pears to  be  necessary  to,  but  of  itself  insufficient  for, 
digestion.  The  requisite  solvent,  a  kind  of  ferment 
called  pepsin,  which  acts  only  in  the  presence  of  the 
acid,  is  poured  forth  by  the  glands  of  the  stomach  only 
after  they  have  absorbed  certain  soluble  nutritive  sub- 
stances- of  the  food;  then  this  pepsin  promptly  dis- 
solves muscle,  fibrine,  coagulated  albumen,  cartilage, 
and  the  like.  Similarly  it  appears  that  Drosera-gl2i;n.diQ^ 
after  irritation  by  particles  of  glass,  did  not  act  upon 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBIXG  PLANTS.    310 

little  cubes  of  albumen.  But  when  moistened  with 
saliva,  or  replaced  by  bits  of  roast-meat  or  gelatine,  or 
even  cartilage,  which  supply  some  soluble  j9e^^^(?7ie-mat- 
ter  to  initiate  the  process,  these  substances  are  promptly 
acted  upon,  and  dissolved  or  digested ;  whence  it  is 
inferred  that  the  analogy  with  the  stomach  holds  good 
throughout,  and  that  a  ferment  similar  to  pepsin  is 
poured  out  under  the  stimulus  of  some  soluble  animal 
matter.  But  the  direct  evidence  of  this  is  furnished 
only  by  the  related  carnivorous  plant,  Dioncea,  from 
which  the  secretions,  poured  out  when  digestion  is 
about  to  begin,  may  be  collected  in  quantity  sufficient 
for  chemical  examination.  In  short,  the  experiments 
show  "that  there  is  a  remarkable  accordance  in  the 
power  of  digestion  between  the  gastric  juice  of  ani- 
mals, with  its  pepsin  and  hydrochloric  acid,  and  the 
secretion  of  Drosera^  with  its  ferment  and  acid  belong- 
ing to  the  acetic  series.  We  can,  therefore,  hardly 
doubt  that  the  ferment  in  both  cases  is  closely  similar, 
if  not  identically  the  same.  That  a  plant  and  an 
animal  should  pour  forth  the  same,  or  nearly  the 
same,  complex  secretion,  adapted  for  the  same  pui*- 
pose  of  digestion,  is  a  new  and  wonderful  fact  in  phys- 
iology." 

There  are  one  or  two  other  species  of  sundew — 
one  of  them  almost  as  common  in  Europe  and  JN^orth 
America  as  the  ordinary  round-leaved  S23ecies — which 
act  in  the  same  way,  except  that,  having  their  leaves 
longer  in  proportion  to  their  breadth,  their  sides  never 
curl  inward,  but  they  are  much  disposed  to  aid  the 
action  of  their  tentacles  by  incurving  the  tip  of  the 
leaf,  as  if  to  grasp  the  morsel.     There  are  many  otli- 


320  LABWINIAN'A. 

ers,  with  variously  less  efficient  and  less  advantageously 
arranged  insectivorous  apparatus,  which,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  new  science,  may  be  either  on  the  way  to 
acquire  something  better,  or  of  losing  what  they  may 
have  had,  while  now  adapting  themselves  to  a  proper 
vegetable  life.  There  is  one  member  of  the  family 
{DrosojyJiyllumLiisitaniciim),  an  almost  shrubby  plant, 
which  grows  on  dry  and  sunny  hills  in  Portugal  and 
Morocco — which  the  villagers  call  "the  fly-catcher," 
and  hang  up  in  their  cottages  for  the  purpose — the 
glandular  tentacles  of  which  have  wholly  lost  their 
powers  of  movement,  if  they  ever  had  any,  but  which 
still  secrete,  digest,  and  absorb,  being  roused  to  great 
activity  by  the  contact  of  any  animal  matter.  A  friend 
of  ours  once  remarked  that  it  was  fearful  to  contem- 
plate the  amount  of  soul  that  could  be  called  forth  in 
a  dog  by  the  sight  of  a  piece  of  meat.  Equally  won- 
derful is  the  avidity  for  animal  food  manifested  by 
these  vegetable  tentacles,  that  can  "only  stand  and 
wait "  for  it. 

Only  a  brief  chapter  is  devoted  to  Dioncea  of 
N^orth  Carolina,  the  Yenus's  fly-trap,  albeit,  "from 
the  rapidity  and  force  of  its  movements,  one  of  the 
most  wonderful  in  the  world."  It  is  of  the  same 
family  as  the  sundew;  but  the  action  is  transferred 
from  tentacles  on  tlie  leaf  to  the  body  of  the  leaf 
itself,  which  is  transformed  into  a  spring-trap,  closing 
with  a  sudden  movement  over  the  alighted  insect.  No 
secretion  is  provided  beforehand  either  for  allurement 
or  detention  ;  but  after  the  captive  is  secured,  micro- 
scopic glands  within  the  surface  of  the  leaf  pour  out 
an  abundant  gastric  juice  to  digest  it.     Mrs.  Glass's 


MSEGTIVOROUS  AKD  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    321 

classical  directions  in  the  cook-book,  "first  catcli  your 
hare,"  are  implicitly  followed. 

Avoiding  here  all  repetition  or  recapitulation  of 
our  former  narrative,  suffice  it  now  to  mention  two  in- 
teresting "recent  additions  to  our  knowledge,  for  which 
we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Darwin.  One  is  a  research, 
the  other  an  inspiration.  It  is  mainly  his  investiga- 
tions which  have  shown  that  the  glairy  liquid,  which 
is  poured  upon  and  macerates  the  captured  insect,  ac- 
complishes a  true  digestion ;  that,  like  the  gastric  juice 
of  animals,  it  contains  both  a  free  acid  and  pepsin  or 
its  analogue,  these  two  together  dissolving  albumen, 
meat,  and  the  like.  The  other  point  relates  to  the  sig- 
nificance of  a  peculiarity  in  the  process  of  capture. 
When  the  trap  suddenly  incloses  an  insect  which  has 
betrayed  its  presence  by  touching  one  of  the  internal 
sensitive  bristles,  the  closure  is  at  first  incomplete. 
For  the  sides  approach  in  an  arching  way,  surround- 
ing a  considerable  cavity,  and  the  marginal  spine-like 
bristles  merely  intercross  their  tips,  leaving  interven- 
ing spaces  through  which  one  may  look  into  the  cavity 
beneath.  A  good  idea  may  be  had  of  it  by  bringing 
the  two  palms  near  together  to  represent  the  sides  of 
the  trap,  and  loosely  interlocking  the  fingers  to  repre- 
sent the  marginal  bristles  or  bars.  After  remaining 
some  time  in  this  position  the  closure  is  made  complete 
by  the  margins  coming  into  full  contact,  and  the  sides 
finally  flattening  down  so  as  to  press  firmly  upon  the 
insect  within ;  the  secretion  excited  by  contact  is  now 
poured  out,  and  digestion  begins.  Why  these  two 
stages?  Why  should  time  be  lost  by  this  preliminary 
and  incomplete  closing?     The  query  probably  was 


322  DARWmiA^TA. 

never  distinctly  raised  before,  no  one  noticing  any- 
thing here  that  needed  explanation.  Darwinian  tele- 
ology, however,  raises  questions  like  this,  and  Mr. 
Darwin  not  only  propounded  the  riddle  but  solved  it. 
The  object  of  the  partial  closing  is  to  permit  small 
insects  to  escape  through  the  meshes,  detaining  only 
those  plump  enough  to  be  worth  the  trouble  of  digest- 
ing. For  naturally  only  one  insect  is  caught  at  a  time, 
and  digestion  is  a  slow  business  with  Dionseas,  as  with 
anacondas,  requiring  ordinarily  a  fortnight.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  undertake  it  with  a  gnat  when  larger 
game  may  be  had.  To  test  this  happy  conjecture,  Mr. 
Canby  was  asked,  on  visiting  the  Dionaeas  in  their 
native  habitat,  to  collect  early  in  the  season  a  good 
series  of  leaves  in  the  act  of  digesting  naturally-caught 
insects.  Upon  opening  them  it  was  found  that  ten 
out  of  fourteen  were  engaged  upon  relatively  large 
prey,  and  of  the  remaining  four  three  had  insects  as 
large  as  ants,  and  one  a  rather  small  fly. 

"There  be  land-rats  and  water-rats"  in  this  carniv- 
orous sundew  family.  Aldrovaiida,  of  the  warmer 
parts  of  Europe  and  of  India,  is  an  aquatic  plant,  with 
bladdery  leaves,  which  were  supposed  to  be  useful  in 
rendering  the  herbage  buoyant  in  water.  But  it  has 
recently  been  found  that  the  bladder  is  composed  of 
two  lobes,  like  the  trap  of  its  relative  Dioncea,  or  the 
valves  of  a  mussel-shell ;  that  these  open  when  the 
plant  is  in  an  active  state,  are  provided  with  some  sen- 
sitive bristles  within,  and  when  these  are  touched  close 
with  a  quick  movement.  These  water-traps  are  mani- 
festly adapted  for  catching  living  creatures ;  and  the 
few  incomplete  investigations  that  have  already  been 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    323 

made  render  it  higlily  probable  that  they  appropriate 
their  prey  for  nourishment ;  whether  by  digestion  or 
by  mere  absorption  of  decomposing  animal  matter,  is 
imcertain.  It  is  certainly  most  remarkable  that  this 
family  of  plants,  wherever  met  with,  and  under  tlie 
most  diverse  conditions  and  modes  of  life,  should 
always  in  some  way  or  other  be  predaceous  and  car- 
nivorous. 

If  it  be  not  only  surprising  but  somewhat  con- 
founding to  our  classifications  that  a  whole  group  of 
plants  should  subsist  partly  by  digesting  animal  mat- 
ter and  partly  in  the  normal  way  of  decomposing  car- 
bonic acid  and  producing  the  basis  of  animal  matter, 
we  have,  as  Mr.  Darwin  remarks,  a  counterpart  anom- 
aly in  the  animal  kingdom.  While  some  plants  have 
stomachs,  some  animals  have  roots.  "  The  rhizoceph- 
alous  crustaceans  do  not  feed  like  other  animals  by 
their  mouths,  for  they  are  destitute  of  an  alimentary 
canal,  but  they  live  by  absorbing  through  root-like 
processes  the  juices  of  the  animals  on  which  they  are 
parasitic." 

To  a  naturalist  of  our  day,  imbued  with  those  ideas 
of  the  solidarity  of  organic  I^ature  which  such  facts  as 
those  we  have  been  considering  suggest,  the  greatest 
anomaly  of  all  would  be  that  they  are  really  anoma- 
lous or  unique.  Reasonably  supposing,  therefore,  that 
the  sundew  did  not  stand  alone,  Mr.  Darwin  tmned 
his  attention  to  other  groups  of  plants ;  and,  first,  to 
the  bladderworts,  which  have  no  near  kinship  with  the 
^  sundews,  but,  like  the  aquatic  representative  of  that 
family,  are  provided  with  bladdery  sacs,  under  water. 
In  the  common  species  of  Utriciolaria  or  bladderwort, 


321  DARWrniANA. 

tliese  little  sacs,  hanging  from  submerged  leaves  or 
l)rancheSj  have  tlieir  orifice  closed  by  a  lid  which  ojDens 
inwardly — a  veritable  trap-door.  It  had  been  noticed 
in  England  and  France  that  they  contained  minute 
crustacean  animals.  Early  in  the  summer  of  1874, 
Mr.  Darwin  ascertained  the  mechanism  for  their  capt- 
ure and  the  great  success  with  which  it  is  used.  But 
before  his  account  was  written  out,  Prof.  Cohn  pub- 
lished an  excellent  paper  on  the-  subject  in  Germany ; 
and  Mrs.  Treat,  of  Yineland,  ]!!Tew  Jersey,  a  still  ear- 
lier one  in  this  country — in  the  I^ew  York  Tribune  in 
the  autumn  of  1871.  Of  the  latter,  Mr.  Darwin  re- 
marks that  she  "has  been  more  successful  than  any 
other  observer  in  witnessing  the  actual  entrance  of 
these  minute  creatures."  They  never  come  out,  but 
soon  j)erish  in  their  prison,  which  receives  a  continued 
succession  of  victims,  but  little,  if  any,  fresh  air  to  the 
contained  water.  The  action  of  the  trap  is  purely  me- 
chanical, without  e'vadent  irritability  in  the  opening  or 
shutting.  There  is  no  evidence  nor  much  likelihood  of 
proper  digestion  ;  indeed,  Mr.  Darwin  found  evidence 
to  the  contrary.  But  the  more  or  less  decomposed 
and  dissolved  animal  matter  is  doubtless  absorbed  in- 
to the  plant ;  for  the  whole  interior  of  the  sac  is  lined 
with  peculiar,  elongated  and  four-armed  very  thin- 
walled  processes,  which  contain  active  protoplasm,  and 
which  were  proved  by  experiment  to  "  have  the  power 
of  absorbing  matter  from  weak  solutions  of  certain 
salts  of  ammonia  and  urea,  and  from  a  putrid  infusion 

of  raw  meat." 

« 

Although  the  bladderworts  "prey-  on  garbage," 
their   terrestrial    relatives  "live   cleanly,"  as   nobler 


mSEGTIVOROUS  AFD  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    325 

plants  should  clo,  and  have  a  good  and  true  digestion. 
Pingiiicida^  or  butterwort,  is  the  representative  of 
this  family  upon  land.  It  gets  both  its  Latin  and  its 
English  name  from  the  fatty  or  greasy  appearance  of 
the  upper  face  of  its  broad  leaves ;  and  this  appear- 
ance is  due  to  a  dense  coat  or  pile  of  short-stalked 
glands,  which  secrete  a  colorless  and  extremely  viscid 
liquid.  By  this  small  flies,  or  whatever  may  alight  or 
fall  upon  the  leaf,  are  held  fast.  These  waifs  might 
be  useless  or  even  injurious  to  the  plant.  Probably 
Mr.  Darwin  was  the  first  to  ask  whether  they  might 
be  of  advantage.  He  certainly  was  the  first  to  show 
that  they  probably  are  so.  The  evidence  from  experi- 
ment, shortly  summed  up,  is,  that  insects  alive  or  dead, 
and  also  other  nitrogenous  bodies,  excite  these  glands 
to  increased  secretion;  the  secretion  then  becomes 
acid,  and  acquires  the  power  of  dissolving  solid  ani- 
mal substances — that  is,  the  power  of  digestion  in  the 
manner  of  Drosera  and  Dioncea.  And  the  stalks  of 
their  glands  under  the  microscope  give  the  same  ocu- 
lar evidence  of  absorption.  The  leaves  of  the  butter- 
wort  are  apt  to  have  their  margins  folded  inward,  like 
a  rim  or  hem.  Taking  young  and  vigorous  leaves  to 
which  hardly  anything  had  yet  adhered,  and  of  which 
the  margins  were  stiU  flat,  Mr.  Darwin  set  within  one 
margin  a  row  of  small  flies.  Fifteen  hours  afterward 
this  edge  was  neatly  turned  inward,  partly  covering 
the  row  of  flies,  and  the  surrounding  glands  were  se- 
creting copiously.  The  other  edge  remained  flat  and 
unaltered.  Then  he  stuck  a  fly  to  the  middle  of  the 
leaf  just  below  its  tip,  and  soon  both  margins  infold- 
ed, so  as  to  clasp  the  object.     Many  other  and  varied 


326  DARWimAN-A. 

experiments  yielded  similar  results.  Even  pollen, 
which  would  not  rarely  be  lodged  upon  these  leaves, 
as  it  falls  from  surrounding  wind-fertilized  plants,  also 
small  seeds,  excited  the  same  action,  and  showed  signs 
of  being  acted  upon.  "We  may  therefore  conclude," 
with  Mr.  Darwin,  "that  Pinguicula  vulgaris,  with 
its  small  roots,  is  not  only  supported  to  a  large  extent 
by  the  extraordinary  number  of  insects  which  it  habit- 
ually captures,  but  likewise  draws  som^e  nourishment 
from  the  pollen,  leaves,  and  seeds,  of  other  plants  which 
often  adhere  to  its  leaves.  It  is,  therefore,  partly  a 
vegetable  as  well  as  an  animal  feeder." 

What  is  now  to  be  thought  of  the  ordinary  glandu- 
lar hairs  which  render  the  surface  of  many  and  the 
most  various  plants  extremely  viscid  ?  Their  number 
is  legion.  The  Chinese  primrose  of  common  garden 
and  house  culture  is  no  extraordinary  instance  ;  but 
Mr.  Francis  Darwin,  counting  those  on  a  small  space 
measured  by  the  micrometer,  estimated  them  at  65,371 
to  the  square  inch  of  foliage,  taking  in  both  surfaces 
of  the  leaf,  or  two  or  three  millions  on  a  moderate-sized 
specimen  of  this  small  herb.  Glands  of  this  sort  were 
loosely  regarded  as  organs  for  excretion,  without  much 
consideration  of  the  question  whether,  in  vegetable 
life,  there  could  be  any  need  to  excrete,  or  any  advan- 
tage gained  by  throwing  off  such  products  ;  and,  while 
the  popular  name  of  catch-fly,  given  to  several  com- 
mon species  of  Silene^  indicates  long  familiarity  with 
the  fact,  probably  no  one  ever  imagined  that  the 
swarms  of  small  insects  which  perish  upon  these  sticky 
surfaces  were  ever  turned  to  account  by  the  plant. 
In  many  such  cases,  no  doubt  they  perish  as  uselessly 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    32T 

as  when  attracted  into  the  flame  of  a  candle.  In  the 
tobacco-plant,  for  instance,  Mr.  Darwin  could  find  no 
evidence  that  the  glandular  hairs  absorb  animal  mat- 
ter. But  Darwinian  philosophy  expects  all  gradations 
between  casualty  and  complete  adaptation.  It  is 
most  probable  that  any  thin-walled  vegetable  structure 
which  secretes  may  also  be  capable  of  absorbing  under 
favorable  conditions.  The  myriads  of  exquisitely- 
constructed  glands  of  the  Chinese  primrose  are  not 
likely  to  be  functionless.  Mr.  Darwin  ascertained  by 
direct  experiment  that  they  promptly  absorb  carbon- 
ate of  ammonia,  both  in  watery  solution  and  in  vapor. 
So,  since  rain-water  usually  contains  a  small  percent- 
age of  ammonia,  a  use  for  these  glands  becomes  aj^par- 
ent — one  completely  congruous  with  that  of  absorbing 
any  animal  matter,  or  products  of  its  decomposition, 
which  may  come  in  their  way  through  the  occasional 
entanglement  of  insects  in  their  viscid  secretion.  In 
several  saxifrages — not  very  distant  relatives  of  Dro- 
sera — ^the  viscid  glands  equally  manifested  the  power 
of  absorption. 

To  trace  a  gradation  between  a  simply  absorbing 
hair  wdth  a  glutinous  tip,  through  which  the  plant  may 
perchance  derive  slight  contingent  advantage,  and  the 
tentacles  of  a  sundew,  with  their  exquisite  and  asso- 
ciated adaptations,  does  not  much  lessen  the  wonder 
nor  explain  the  phenomena.  After  all,  as  Mr.  Dar- 
win modestly  concludes,  "  we  see  how  little  has  been 
made  out  in  comparison  with  what  remains  unex- 
plained and  unknown."  But  all  this  must  be  allowed 
to  be  an  important  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  gradual  acquirement  of  uses  and  functions,  and 


323  DARWrniANA. 

liardly  to  find  conceivable  explanation  npon  any 
other  hypothesis. 

There  remains  one  more  mode  in  which  plants  of 
the  higher  grade  are  known  to  prey  npon  animals ; 
namely,  by  means  of  pitchers,  urns,  or  tubes,  in  which 
insects  and  the  like  are  drowned  or  confined,  and  either 
macerated  or.  digested.  To  this  Mr.  Darwin  barely 
alludes  on  the  last  page  of  the  present  volume.  The 
main  facts  known  respecting  the  American  pitcher- 
plants  have,  as  was  natm-al,  been  ascertained  in  this 
country ;  and  we  gave  an  abstract,  two  years  ago,  of 
our  then  incipient  knowledge.  Much  has  been  learned 
since,  although  all  the  observations  have  been  of  a  des- 
ultory character.  If  space  permitted,  an  instructive 
narrative  might  be  drawn  up,  as  well  of  the  economy 
of  the  Sarracenias  as  of  how  we  came  to  know  what 
we  do  of  it.  But  the  very  little  we  have  room  for  will 
be  strictly  supplementary  to  our  former  article. 

The  pitchers  of  our  familiar  Northern  Sari^acenia^ 
which  is  likewise  Southern,  are  open-mouthed ;  and, 
although  they  certainly  secrete  some  liquid  when 
young,  must  derive  most  of  the  water  they  ordinarily 
contain  from  rain.  How  insects  are  attracted  is  un- 
known, but  the  water  abounds  with  their  drowned 
bodies  and  decomposing  remains. 

In  the  more  southern  S.  flava,  the  long  and  trum- 
pet-shaped pitchers  evidently  dej)end  upon  the  liquid 
which  they  themselves  secrete,  although  at  maturity, 
when  the  hood  becomes  erect,  rain  may  somewhat  add 
to  it.  This  species,  as  we  know,  allures  insects  by  a 
peculiar  sweet  exudation  within  the  orifice  ;  they  fall 
in  and  perish,  though  seldom  by  drowning,  yet  few 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS     329 

are  able  to  escape  ;  and  tlieir  decomposing  remains  ac- 
cumulate in  the  narrow  bottom  of  the  vessel.  Two 
other  long-tubed  species  of  the  Southern  States  are 
similar  in  these  respects.  There  is  another,  S.  psit- 
tacina,  the  parrot-headed  species,  remarkable  for  the 
cowl-shaped  hood  so  completely  inflexed  over  the 
mouth  of  the  small  pitcher  that  no  rain  can  possibly 
enter.  Little  is  known,  however,  of  the  efficiency  of 
this  species  as  a  fly-catcher ;  but  its  conformation  has 
a  morphological  interest,  leading  up,  as  it  does,  to  the 
Californian  type  of  pitcher  presently  to  be  mentioned. 
Eut  the  remaining  species,  S.  variolaris^  is  the  most 
wonderful  of  our  pitcher-plants  in  its  adaptations  for 
the  capture  of  insects.  The  inflated  and  mottled  lid 
or  hood  overarches  the  ample  orifice  of  the  tubular 
pitcher  sufficiently  to  ward  off  the  rain,  but  not  to 
obstruct  the  free  access  of  flying  insects.  Flies,  ants, 
and  most  insects,  glide  and  fall  from  the  treacherous 
smooth  throat  into  the  deep  well  below,  and  never 
escape.  They  are  allured  by  a  sweet  secretion  just 
within  the  oriflce — which  was  discovered  and  described 
long  ago,  and  the  knowledge  of  it  wellnigh  forgotten 
until  recently.  And,  finally.  Dr.  Mellichamp,  of  South 
Carolina,  two  years  ago  made  the  capital  discovery  that, 
during  the  height  of  the  season,  this  lure  extends  from 
the  orifice  down  nearly  to  the  ground,  a  length  of  a 
foot  or  two,  in  the  forai  of  a  honeyed  line  or  narrow 
trail  on  the  edge  of  the  wing-like  border  which  is  con- 
spicuous in  all  these  species,  although  only  in  this  one, 
so  far  as  known,  turned  to  such  account.  Here,  one 
would  say,  is  a  special  adaptation  to  ants  and  such  ter- 
restrial and  creeping  insects.     "Well,  long  before  this 


330  DAEWINIANA. 

sweet  trail  was  known,  it  was  remarked  by  tlie  late 
Prof.  Wyman  and  others  that  the  pitchers  of  this 
species,  in  the  savannahs  of  Georgia  and  Florida,  con- 
tain far  more  ants  than  they  do  of  all  other  insects 
put  together. 

Finally,  all  this  is  essentially  repeated  in  the  pecul- 
iar Califomian  pitcher-plant  {Darlingtonid)^  a  genus 
of  the  same  natural  family,  which  captures  insects  in 
great  variety,  enticing  them  by  a  sweetish  secretion 
over  the  whole  inside  of  the  inflated  hood  and  that  of 
a  curious  forked  appendage,  resembling  a  hsh-tail, 
which  overhangs  the  orifice.  This  orifice  is  so  con- 
cealed that  it  can  be  seen  and  approached  only  from 
below,  as  if — the  casual  observer  might  infer — to  es- 
cape visitation.  But  dead  insects  of  all  kinds,  and 
their  decomposing  remains,  crowd  the  cavity  and  satu- 
rate the  liquid  therein  contained,  enticed,  it  is  said,  by 
a  peculiar  odor,  as  well  as  by  the  sweet  lure  which  is 
at  some  stages  so  abundant  as  to  drip  from  the  tips  of 
the  overhanging  appendage.  The  principal  observa- 
tions upon  this  pitcher-plant  in  its  native  habitat  have 
been  made  by  Mrs.  Austin,  and  only  some  of  the  ear- 
lier ones  have  thus  far  been  published  by  Mr.  Canby. 
But  we  are  assured  that  in  this,  as  in  the  Sarraceiiia 
variolaris^  the  sweet  exudation  extends  at  the  proper 
season  from  the  orifice  down  the  wing  nearly  to  the 
ground,  and  that  ants  follow  this  honeyed  pathway  to 
their  destruction.  Also,  that  the  watery  liquid  in  the 
pitcher,  which  must  be  wholly  a  secretion,  is  much  in- 
creased in  quantity  after  the  capture  of  insects. 

It  cannot  now  well  be  doubted  that  the  animal 
matter  is  utilized  by  the  plant  in  all  these  cases,  al- 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    331 

tliongli  most  probably  only  after  maceration  or  de- 
composition. In  some  of  tliem  even  digestion,  or 
at  least  the  absorption  of  undecomposed  soluble  ani- 
mal juices,  may  be  suspected ;  but  there  is  no  proof 
of  it.  But,  if  pitchers  of  the  Sarracenia  family  are 
only  macerating  vessels,  those  of  Nejpenthes  —  the 
pitchers  of  the  Indian  Archipelago,  familiar  in  con- 
servatories—seem to  be  stomachs.  The  investigations 
of  the  President  of  the  Hoyal  Society,  Dr.  Hooker, 
although  incomplete,  wellnigh  demonstrate  that  these 
not  only  allure  insects  by  a  sweet  secretion  at  the  rim 
and  upon  the  lid  of  the  cup,  but  also  that  their  capt- 
ure, or  the  presence  of  other  partly  soluble  animal 
matter,  produces  an  increase  and  an  acidulation  of  the 
contained  watery  liquid,  which  thereupon  becomes 
capable  of  acting  in  the  manner  of  that  of  Drosera 
and  Dioncea^  dissolving  flesh,  albumen,  and  the  like. 

After  all,  there  never  was  just  ground  for  denying 
to  vegetables  the  use  of  animal  food.  The  fungi  are 
by  far  the  most  numerous  family  of  plants,  and  they 
all  live  upon  organic  matter,  some  upon  dead  and  de- 
composing, some  upon  living,  some  upon  both;  and 
the  number  of  those  that  feed  upon  living  animals 
is  large.  Whether  these  carnivorous  propensities  of 
higher  plants  which  so  excite  our  wonder  be  regarded 
as  survivals  of  ancestral  habits,  or  as  comparatively 
late  acquirements, .  or  even  as  special  endowments,  in 
any  case  what  we  have  now  learned  of  them  goes  to 
strengthen  the  conclusion  that  the  whole  organic  world 
is  akin. 

The  volume  upon  *'  The  Movements  and  Habits 
of  Climbing  Plants  "  is  a  revised  and  enlarged  edition 


332  DARWINIANA. 

of  a  memoir  communicated  to  tlie  Limicean  Society  in 
1865,  and  published  in  the  ninth  volume  of  its  Jour- 
nal. There  was  an  extra  impression,  but,  beyond  the 
circle  of  naturalists,  it  can  hardly  have  been  much 
known  at  first-hand.  Even  now,  when  it  is  made  a 
part  of  the  general  Darwinian  literature,  it  is  unlikely 
to  be  as  widely  read  as  the  companion  volume  which 
we  have  been  reviewing ;  although  it  is  really  a  more 
readable  book,  and  well  worthy  of  far  more  extended 
notice  at  our  hands  than  it  can  now  receive.  The  rea- 
son is  obvious.  It  seems  as  natural  that  plants  should 
climb  as  it  does  unnatural  that  any  should  take  animal 
food.  Most  people,  knowing  that  some  plants  "  twine 
with  the  sun,"  and  others  "  against  the  sun,"  have  an 
idea  that  the  sun  in  some  way  causes  the  twining ;  in- 
deed, the  notion  is  still  fixed  in  the  popular  mind  that 
the  same  species  twines  in  opposite  directions  north 
and  south  of  the  equator. 

Headers  of  this  fascinating  treatise  will  learn,  first 
of  all,  that  the  sun  has  no  influence  over  such  move- 
ments directly,  and  that  its  indirect  influence  is  com- 
monly adverse  or  disturbing,  except  the  heat,  which 
quickens  vegetable  as  it  does  animal  life.  Also,  that 
climbing  is  accomplished  by  powers  and  actions  as  mi- 
like  those  generally  predicated  of  the  vegetable  king- 
dom as  any  which  have  been  brought  to  view  in  the 
preceding  volume.  Climbing  plants  "  feel "  as  well  as 
"  grow  and  hve ;  "  and  they  also  manifest  an  automa- 
tism which  is  perhaps  more  wonderful  than  a  response 
by  visible  movement  to  an  external  irritation.  Xor 
do  plants  grow  up  their  supports,  as  is  unthinkingly 
supposed  ;  for,  although  only  growing  or  newly-grown 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    333 

parts  act  in  climbing,  tlie  climbing  and  tlie  growth  are 
entirely  distinct.  To  tliis  tliere  is  one  exception — an 
instructive  one,  as  showing  how  one  action  passes  into 
another,  and  how  the  same  result  may  be  brought 
about  in  different  ways — that  of  stems  which  climb  by 
rootlets,  such  as  of  ivy  and  trumpet-creeper.  Here  the 
stem  ascends  by  growth  alone,  taking  upward  direc- 
tion, and  is  fixed  by  rootlets  as  it  grows.  There  is  no 
iDetter  way  of  climbing  walls,  precipices,  and  large 
tree-trunks. 

But  small  stems  and  similar  supports  are  best  as- 
cended by  twining ;  and  this  calls  out  powers  of  anoth- 
er and  higher  order.  The  twining  stem  does  not  grow 
around  its  support,  but  winds  around  it,  and  it  does 
this  by  a  movement  the  nature  of  which  is  best  ob- 
served in  stems  which  have  not  yet  reached  their  sup- 
port, or  have  overtopped  it  and  stretched  out  beyond 
it.  Then  it  may  be  seen  that  the  extending  summit, 
reaching  farther  and  farther  as  it  grows,  is  making  free 
circular  sweeps,  by  night  as  well  as  by  day,  and  irre- 
spective of  external  circumstances,  except  that  warmth 
accelerates  the  movement,  and  that  the  general  ten- 
dency of  young  stems  to  bend  toward  the  light  may, 
in  case  of  lateral  illumination,  accelerate  one-half  the 
circuit  while  it  equally  retards  the  other.  The  arrest 
of  the  revolution  where  the  supporting  body  is  struck, 
while  the  portion  beyond  continues  its  movement, 
brings  about  the  twining.  As  to  the  proximate  cause 
of  this  sweeping  motion,  a  few  simple  experiments 
prove  that  it  results  from  the  bowing  or  bending  of  the 
free  summit  of  the  stem  into  a  more  or  less  horizontal 

position  (this  bending  being  successively  to  every  point 
15 


334  DARWINIANA. 

of  tlie  compass,  through  an  action  which  circulates 
around  the  stem  in  the  direction  of  the  sweep),  and  of 
the  consequent  twining,  i.  e.,  "  with  the  sun,"  or  with 
the  movement  of  the  hands  of  a  watch,  in  the  hop, 
or  in  the  opposite  direction  in  pole-beans  and  most 
twiners. 

Twining  plants,  therefore,  ascend  trees  or  other 
stems  by  an  action  and  a  movement  of  their  own,  from 
which  they  derive  advantage.  To  plants  liable  to  be 
overshadowed  by  more  robust  companions,  climbing  is 
an  economical  method  of  obtaining  a  freer  exposure  to 
light  and  air  with  the  smallest  possible  expenditure  of 
material.  But  twiners  have  one  disadvantage  :  to  rise 
ten  feet  they  must  produce  fifteen  feet  of  stem  or 
thereabouts,  according  to  the  diameter  of  the  sup- 
port, and  the  openness  or  closeness  of  the  coil.  A  root- 
let-climber saves  much  in  this  respect,  but  has  a  re- 
stricted range  of  action,  and  other  disadvantages. 

There  are  two  other  modes,  which  combine  the  ut- 
most economy  of  material  with  freer  range  of  action. 
There  are,  in  the  first  place,  leaf -climbers  of  various 
sorts,  agreeing  only  in  this,  that  the  duty  of  laying 
hold  is  transferred  to  the  leaves,  so  that  the  stem  may 
rise  in  a  direct  line.  Sometimes  the  blade  or  leaflets, 
or  some  of  them,  but  more  commonly  their  slender 
stalks,  undertake  the  work,  and  the  plant  rises  as  a  boy 
ascends  a  tree,  grasping  first  with  one  hand  or  arm, 
then  with  the  other.  Indeed,  the  comparison,  like  the 
leaf-stalk,  holds  better  than  would  be  supposed ;  for 
the  grasping  of  the  latter  is  not  the  result  of  a  blind 
groping  in  all  directions  by  a  continuous  movement, 
but  of  a  definite  sensitiveness  which  acts  only  upon  the 


INSECTIYOEOUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    335 


occasion.  Most  leaves  make  no  regular  sweeps ;  but 
when  the  stalks  of  a  leaf-climbing  species  come  into 
prolonged  contact  with  any  fitting  extraneous  body, 
they  slowly  incurve  and  make  a  turn  around  it,  and 
then  commonly  thicken  and  harden  until  they  attain 
a  strength  which  may  equal  that  of  the  stem  itself. 
Here  we  have  the  faculty  of  movement  to  a  definite 
end,  upon  external  irritation,  of  the  same  nature  with 
that  displayed  by  Dioncea  and  Drosera^  although  slow- 
er for  the  most  part  than  even  in  the  latter.  But  the 
movement  of  the  hour-hand  of  the  clock  is  not  differ- 
ent in  nature  or  cause  from  that  of  the  second-hand. 

Finally — distribution  of  oflSce  being,  on  the  whole, 
most  advantageous  and  economical,  and  this,  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  being  led  up  to  by  degrees — we 
reach,  through  numerous  gradations,  the  highest  style 
of  climbing  plants  in  the  tendril-climber.  A  tendril, 
morphologically,  is  either  a  leaf  or  branch  of  stem,  or 
a  portion  of  one,  specially  organized  for  climbing. 
Some  tendrils  simply  turn  away  from  light,  as  do  those 
of  grape-vines,  thus  taking  the  direction  in  which  some 
supporting  object  is  likely  to  be  encountered ;  most 
are  indifferent  to  light ;  and  many  revolve  in  the  man- 
ner of  the  summit  of  twining  stems.  As  the  stems 
which  bear  these  highly-endowed  tendrils  in  many 
cases  themselves  also  devolve  more  or  less,  though  they 
seldom  twine,  their  reach  is  the  more  extensive  ;  and 
to  this  endowment  of  automatic  movement  most  ten- 
drils add  the  other  faculty,  that  of  incurving  and  coil- 
ing upon  prolonged  touch,  or  even- brief  contact,  in  the 
highest  degree.  Some  long  tendrils,  when  in  their 
best  condition,  revolve  so  rapidly  that  the  sweeping 


336  BARWmiANA. 

movement  may  be  plainly  seen  ;  indeed,  we  have  seen 
a  quarter-circuit  in  a  Passiflora  sicyoides  accomplished 
in  less  than  a  minute,  and  the  half -circuit  in  ten  min- 
utes ;  but  the  other  half  (for  a  reason  alluded  to  in  the 
next  paragraph)  takes  a  much  longer  time.  Then,  as 
to  the  coiling  upon  contact,  in  the  case  first  noticed  in 
this  country,^  in  the  year  1858,  which  Mr.  Darwin 
mentions  as  having  led  him  into  this  investigation, 
the  tendril  of  Sicyos  was  seen  to  coil  within  half  a 
minute  after  a  stroke  with  the  hand,  and  to  make  a 
full  turn  or  more  within  the  next  minute ;  furnishing 
ocular  evidence  that  tendrils  grasp  and  coil  in  virtue 
of  sensitiveness  to  contact,  and,  one  would  suppose, 
negativing  Sachs's  recent  hypothesis  that  all  these 
movements  are  owing  "  to  rapid  growth  on  the  side 
opposite  to  that  which  becomes  concave  " — a  view  to 
which  Mr.  Darwin  objects,  but  not  so  strongly  as  he 
might.  The  tendril  of  this  sort,  on  striking  some  fit- 
ting object,  quickly  curls  round  and  fiimly  grasps  it ; 
then,  after  some  hours,  one  side  shortening  or  remain- 
ing short  in  proportion  to  the  other,  it  coils  into  a 
spire,  dragging  the  stem  up  to  its  support,  and  ena- 
bling the  next  tendril  above  to  secure  a  readier 
hold. 

In  revolving  tendrils  perhaps  the  most  wonderful 
adaptation  is  that  by  which  they  avoid  attachment  to, 
or  winding  themselves  upon,  the  ascending  summit  of 
the  stem  that  bears  them.  This  they  would  inevitably 
do  if  they  continued  their  sweep  horizontally.     But 

*  [A.  Gray,  in  "  Proceedings  of  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and 
Sciences,"  vol.  iv.,  p.  98 ;  and  American  Journal  of  Science  and  the 
Arts,  March,  1859,  p.  2*78.] 


INSECTIVOROUS  AND  CLIMBING  PLANTS.    337 

when  in  its  course  it  nears  tlie  parent  stem  the  tendril 
moves  slowly,  as  if  to  gather  strength,  then  stiffens 
and  rises  into  an  erect  position  parallel  with  it,  and  so 
passes  bj  the  dangerous  point ;  after  which  it  comes 
rapidly  down  to  the  horizontal  position,  in  which  it 
moves  until  it  again  approaches  and  again  avoids  the 
impending  obstacle. 

Climbing  plants  are  distributed  throughout  almost 
all  the  natural  orders.  In  some  orders  climbing  is 
the  rule,  in  most  it  is  the  exception,  occurring  only  in 
certain  genera.  The  tendency  of  stems  to  move  in 
circuits — upon  which  climbing  more  commonly  de- 
pends, and  out  of  which  it  is  conceived  to  have  been 
educed — is  manifested  incipiently  by  many  a  plant 
which  does  not  climb.  Of  those  that  do  there  are 
all  degrees,  from  the  feeblest  to  the  most  efficient, 
from  those  which  have  no  special  adaptation  to  those 
which  have  exquisitely-endowed  special  organs  for 
climbing.  The  conclusion  reached  is,  that  the  power 
"is  inherent,  though  undeveloped,  in  almost  every 
plant ;  "  "  that  climbing  plants  have  utilized  and  per- 
fected a  widely-distributed  and  incipient  capacity, 
which,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  is  of  no  service  to  ordi- 
nary plants." 

Inherent  powers  and  incipient  manifestations,  use- 
less to  their  possessors  but  useful  to  their  successors — 
this,  doubtless,  is  according  to  the  order  of  l^ature ; 
but  it  seems  to  need  something  more  than  natural  se- 
lection to  account  for  it. 


XII. 

DUKATION    AND    ORIGINATION    OF    KACE    AND    SPECIES. 

BIPOKT    OF    SEXUAL     KEPEODUCTION. 


Do  Varieties  wear  out,  or  tend  to  wear  out  f 

(New  Tokk  TKiBrNE,  and  American  Jouknal  of  Science  and  tiie  Abts, 

February,   1875.) 

This  question  has  been  argued  from  time  to  time 
for  more  than  half  a  century,  and  is  far  from  being 
settled  yet.  Indeed,  it  is  not  to  be  settled  either  way 
so  easily  as  is  sometimes  thought.  The  result  of  a 
prolonged  and  rather  lively  discussion  of  the  topic 
about  forty  years  ago  in  England,  in  which  Lindley 
bore  a  leading  part  on  the  negative  side,  was,  if  we 
rightly  remember,  that  the  nays  had  the  best  of  the 
argument.  The  deniers  could  fairly  well  explain  away 
the  facts  adduced  by  the  other  side,  and  evade  the 
force  of  the  reasons  then  assigned  to  prove  that  varie- 
ties were  bound  to  die  out  in  the  course  of  time.  But 
if  the  case  were  fully  re-argued  now,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  nays  would  win  it.  The  most  they 
could  expect  would  be  the  Scotch  verdict,  "  not 
proven.-'  And  this  not  because  much,  if  any,  addi- 
tional evidence  of  the  actual  wearing  out  of  any  vari- 


DURATION  Oi  RACES.  330 

etj  has  turned  up  since,  but  because  a  presumption 
has  been  raised  under  wliicli  tlie  evidence  would  take 
a  bias  the  other  way.  There  is  now  in  the  minds  of 
scientific  men  some  reason  to  expect  that  certain  vari- 
eties w^ould  die  out  in  the  long  rmi,  and  this  might 
have  an  important  influence  upon  the  intei"pretation 
of  the  facts.  Curiously  enough,  however,  the  recent 
discussions  to  which  our  attention  has  been  called 
seem,  on  both  sides,  to  have  overlooked  this. 

But,  first  of  all,  the  question  needs  to  be  more 
specifically  stated.  There  are  varieties  and  varieties. 
They  may,  some  of  them,  disappear  or  deteriorate,  but 
yet  not  wear  out — not  come  to  an  end  from  any  inher- 
ent cause.  One  might  even  say,  the  younger  they  are 
the  less  the  chance  of  survival  unless  well  cared  for. 
They  may  be  smothered  out  by  the  adverse  force  of 
superior  numbers;  they  are  even  more  likely  to  be 
bred  out  of  existence  by  unprevented  cross-fertiliza- 
tion, or  to  disappear  from  mere  change  of  fashion. 
The  question,  however,  is  not  so  much  about  reversion  to 
an  ancestral  state,  or  the  falling  off  of  a  high-bred  stock 
into  an  inferior  condition.  Of  such  cases  it  is  enough 
to  say  that,  when  a  variety  or  strain,  of  animal  or  vege- 
table, is  led  up  to  unusual  fecundity  or  of  size  or  prod- 
uct of  any  organ,  for  our  good,  and  not  for  the  good 
of  the  plant  or  animal  itself,  it  can  be  kept  so  only  by 
high  feeding  and  exceptional  care ;  and  that  with  high 
feeding  and  artificial  appliances  comes  vastly  increased 
liability  to  disease,  w^hich  may  practically  annihilate 
the  race.  But  then  the  race,  like  the  bursted  boiler, 
could  not  be  said  to  wear  out,  while  if  left  to  ordinary 
conditions,  and  allowed  to  degenerate  back  into  a  more 


340  .   DARWimANA. 

natural  if  less  useful  state,  its  hold  on  life  would  evi- 
dently be  increased  rather  than  diminished. 

As  to  natural  varieties  or  races  under  normal  con- 
ditions, sexually  propagated,  it  could  readily  be  shov^n 
that  they  are  neither  more  nor  less  likely  to  disappear 
from  any  inherent  cause  than  the  species  from  which 
they  originated.  Whether  species  wear  out,  i.  e.,  have 
their  rise,  culmination,  and  decline,  from  any  inherent 
cause,  is  wholly  a  geological  and  very  speculative  prob- 
lem, upon  which,  indeed,  only  vague  conjectures  can 
be  offered.  The  matter  actually  under  discussion  con- 
cerns cultivated  domesticated  varieties  only,  and,  as  to 
plants,  is  covered  by  two  questions. 

First,  Will  races  projpagated  hy  seed,  being  so  fixed 
that  they  come  true  to  seed,  and  purely  bred  (not 
crossed  Avith  any  other  sort),  continue  so  indefinitely, 
or  will  they  run  out  in  time — not  die  out,  perhaps, 
but  lose  their  distinguishing  characters  ?  Upon  this, 
all  we  are  able  to  say  is  that  we  know  no  reason  why 
they  should  wear  out  or  deteriorate  from  any  inherent 
cause.  The  transient  existence  or  the  deterioration 
and  disappearance  of  many  such  races  are  sufficiently 
accounted  for  otherwise ;  as  in  the  case  of  extraordi- 
narily exuberant  varieties,  such  as  mammoth  fruits  or 
roots,  by  increased  liability  to  disease,  already  adverted 
to,  or  by  the  failure  of  the  high  feeding  they  demand. 
A  common  cause,  in  ordinary  cases,  is  cross-breeding, 
through  the  agency  of  wind  or  insects,  which  is  diflScult 
to  guard  against.  Or  they  go  out  of  fashion  and  are 
superseded  by  others  thought  to  be  better,  and  so  the 
old  ones  disappear. 

Or,  finally,  they  may  revert  to  an  ancestral  form. 


DURATION  OF  RACES.  Z^\ 

As  offspring  tend  to  resemble  grandparents  almost  as 
mucli  as  parents,  and  as  a  line  of  close-bred  ancestry 
is  generally  prepotent,  so  newly-originated  varieties 
have  always  a  tendency  to  reversion.  This  is  pretty 
sure  to  show  itself  in  some  of  tlie  progeny  of  the  ear- 
lier generations,  and  the  breeder  has  to  guard  against 
it  by  rigid  selection.  But  the  older  the  variety  is — 
that  is,  the  longer  the  series  of  generations  in  which 
it  has  come  true  from  seed — the"  less  the  chance  of  re- 
version :  for  now,  to  be  like  the  immediate  parents,  is 
also  to  be  like  a  long  line  of  ancestry;  and  so  all  the 
influences  concerned — that  is,  both"  parental  and  an- 
cestral heritability — act  in  one  and  the  same  direction. 
So,  since  the  older  a  race  is  the  more  reason  it  has  to 
continue  true,  the  presumption  of  the  unlimited  per- 
manence of  old  races  is  very  strong. 

Of  course  the  race  itself  may  give  off  new  varie- 
ties ;  but  that  is  no  interference  with  the  vitality  of 
the  original  stock.  If  some  of  the  new  varieties  sup- 
plant the  old,  that  will  not  be  because  the  unvaried 
stock  is  worn  out  or  decrepit  with  age,  but  because  in 
wild  Nature  the  newer  forms  are  better  adapted  to  the 
surroundings,  or,  under  man's  care,  better  adapted  to 
his  wants  or  fancies. 

The  second  question,  and  one  upon  which  the  discus- 
sion about  the  wearing  out  of  varieties  generally  turns, 
is.  Will  varieties projyagated from  luds^  i,  e.,  hj  divis- 
ion, grafts,  hidhs,  tuhers,  and  the  like,  necessarily  dete- 
inorate  and  die  out  f  First,  Do  they  die  out  as  a  matter 
of  fact  ?  Upon  this,  the  testimony  has  all  along  been 
conflicting.  Andrew  Knight  was  sure  that  tliey  do, 
and  there  could  hardly  be  a  more  trustworthy  witness. 


312  DAEWimANA. 

"The  fact,"  he  says,  fifty  years  ago,  "that  certain  varieties 
of  some  species  of  fruit  which  have  been  long  cultivated  cannot 
now  be  made  to  grow  in  the  same  soils  and  under  the  same 
mode  of  management,  which  was  a  century  ago  so  perfectly 
successful,  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  controversy.  Every 
experiment  which  seemed  to  afford  the  slightest  prospect  of 
success  was  tried  by  myself  and  others  to  propagate  the  old 
varieties  of  the  apple  and  pear  which  formerly  constituted  the 
orchards  of  Herefordshire,  without  a  single  healthy  or  eflScient 
tree  having  been  obtained;  and  I  believe  all  attempts  to  propa- 
gate these  varieties  have,  during  some  years,  wholly  ceased  to 
be  made." 

To  this  it  was  replied,  in  that  and  the  next  gen- 
eration, that  cultivated  vines  have  been  transmitted  by 
j)erpetual  division  from  the  time  of  the  Romans,  and 
that  several  of  the  sorts,  still  prized  and  prolific,  are 
well  identified,  among  them  the  ancient  Grsecnla,  con- 
sidered to  be  the  modern  Corinth  or  currant  grape, 
which  has  immemorially  been  seedless ;  that  the  old 
nonpareil  apple  was  known  in  the  time  of  Queen 
Elizabeth;  that  the  white  beurre  pears  of  France  have 
been  propagated  from  the  earliest  times ;  and  that 
golden  pippins,  St.  Michael  pears,  and  others  said  to 
have  run  out,  were  still  to  be  had  in  good  condition. 

Coming  down  to  the  present  year,  a  glance  through 
the  proceedings  of  pomological  societies,  and  the  de- 
bates of  farmers'  clubs,  brings  out  the  same  difference 
of  opinion.  The  testimony  is  nearly  equally  divided. 
Perhaps  the  larger  number  speak  of  the  deterioration 
and  failure  of  particular  old  sorts ;  but  when  the  ques- 
tion turns  on  '^  wearing  out,"  the  positive  evidence  of 
vigorous  trees  and  sound  fruits  is  most  telling.  A  lit- 
tle positive  testimony  outweighs  a  good  deal  of  nega- 


DURATION  OF  RAGES.  343 

tive.  This  cannot  readily  be  explained  away,  while 
the  failures  may  be,  by  exhaustion  of  soil,  incoraiug 
of  disease,  or  alteration  of  climate  or  circumstances. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  urged  that,  if  a  variety 
of  this  sort  is  fated  to  become  decrepit  and  die  out,  it 
is  not  bound  to  die  out  all  at  once,  and  everywhere  at 
the  same  time.  It  would  be  expected  first  to  give 
way  wherever  it  is  weakest,  from  whatever  cause. 
This  consideration  has  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
final  question.  Are  old  varieties  of  this  kind  on  the 
way  to  die  out  on  account  of  their  age  or  any  inherent 
limit  of  vitality? 

Here,  again,  Mr.  Knight  took  an  extreme  view. 
In  his  essay  in  the  "  Philosophical  Transactions,"  pub- 
lished in  the  year  1810,  he  propounded  the  theory, 
not  merely  of  a  natural  limit  to  varieties  from  grafts 
and  cuttings,  but  even  that  they  would  not  survive 
the  natural  term  of  the  life  of  the  seedling  trees  from 
which  they  were  originally  taken.  Whatever  may 
have  been  his  view  of  the  natm-al  term  of  the  life  of 
a  tree,  and  of  a  cutting  being  merely  a  part  of  the 
individual  that  produced  it,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he 
laid  himself  open  to  the  effective  replies  which  were 
made  from  all  sides  at  the  time,  and  have  lost  none  of 
their  force  since.  "Weeping-willows,  bread-fruits,  ba- 
nanas, sugar-cane,  tiger-lilies,  Jerusalem  artichokes, 
and  the  like,  have  been  propagated  for  a  long  while 
in  this  way,  without  evident  decadence. 

Moreover,  the  analogy  upon  which  his  hypothesis 
is  founded  will  not  hold.  Whether  or  not  one  adopts 
the  present  writer's  conception,  that  individuality  is 
not  actually  reached  or  maintained  in  the  vegetal^le 


344  DAEWmiANA. 

world,  it  is  clear  enougli  that  a  common  plant  or  tree 
is  not  an  individual  in  the  sense  that  a  horse  or  man, 
or  any  one  of  the  higher  animals,  is — that  it  is  an  indi- 
vidual only  in  the  sense  that  a  branching  zoophyte 
or  mass  of  coral  is.  Solvitiir  crescendo :  the  tree  and 
the  branch  equally  demonstrate  that  they  are  not  indi- 
viduals, by  being  divided  with  impunity  and  advan- 
tage, with  no  loss  of  life,  but  much  increase.  It  looks 
odd  enough  to  see  a  writer  like  Mr.  Sisley  reproducing 
the  old  hypothesis  in  so  bare  a  form  as  this :  "I  am 
prepared  to  maintain  that  varieties  are  individuals,  and 
that  as  they  are  born  they  must  die,  like  other  indi- 
viduals. .  .  .  We  know  that  oaks.  Sequoias,  and  other 
trees,  live  several  centuries,  but  how  many  we  do  not 
exactly  know.  But  that  they  must  die,  no  one  in  his 
senses  will  dispute."  !N^ow,  what  people  in  their  senses 
do  dispute  is,  not  that  the  tree  will  die,  but  that  other 
trees,  established  from  its  cuttings,  will  die  with  it. 

But  does  it  follow  from  this  that  non-sexually- 
propagated  varieties  are  endowed  with  the  same  power 
of  milimited  duration  that  is  possessed  by  varieties 
and  species  propagated  sexually — i.  e.,  by  seed  ?  Those 
who  think  so  jump  too  soon  at  their  conclusion.  For, 
as  to  the  facts,  it  is  not  enough  to  point  out  the  dis- 
eases or  the  trouble  in  the  soil  or  the  atmosphere  to 
which  certain  old  fruits  are  succumbing,  nor  to  prove 
that  a  parasitic  fungus  {Peronosjyora  infe stand)  is 
what  is  the  matter  with  potatoes.  For  how  else  would 
constitutional  debility,  if  such  there  be,  more  natural- 
ly manifest  itself  than  in  such  increased  liability  or 
diminished  resistance  to  such  attacks?  And  if  you 
say  that,  anyhow,  such  varieties  do  not  die  of  old  age 


DURATION  OF  RAGES.  345 

— meaning  tliat  each  individual  attacked  does  not  die 
of  old  age,  but  of  manifest  disease — it  may  be  asked  In 
retm*n,  wliat  individual  man  ever  dies  of  old  age  in  any 
other  sense  than  of  a  similar  inability  to  resist  inva- 
sions which  in  earlier  years  would  have  produced  no 
noticeable  effect  1  Aged  people  die  of  a  slight  cold 
or  a  slight  accident,  but  the  inevitable  weakness  that 
attends  old  age  is  what  makes  these  slight  attacks  fatal. 

Finally,  there  is  a  philosophical  argument  which 
tells  strongly  for  some  limitation  of  the  duration  of 
non-sexually-proj^agated  forms,  one  that  probably 
Knight  never  thought  of,  but  which  we  should  not 
have  expected  recent  writers  to  overlook.  Wlien  Mr. 
Darwin  announced  the  principle  that  cross-fertilization 
between  the  individuals  of  a  species  is  the  plan  of 
^Nature,  and  is  practically  so  universal  that  it  fairly 
sustains  his  inference  that  no  hermaphrodite  species 
continually  self -fertilized  would  continue  to  exist,  he 
made  it  -clear  to  all  who  apprehend  and  receive  the 
principle  that  a  series  of  plants  propagated  by  buds 
only  must  have  weaker  hold  of  life  than  a  series  re- 
produced by  seed.  For  the  former  is  the  closest  pos- 
sible kind  of  close  breeding.  Upon  this  ground  such 
varieties  may  be  expected  ultimately  to  die  out ;  but 
"  the  mills  of  the  gods  grind  so  exceeding  slow  "  that 
we  cannot  say.  that  any  particular  grist  has  been  actu- 
ally ground  out  under  human  observation. 

If  it  be  asked  how  the  asserted  principle  is  proved 
or  made  probable,  we  can  here  merely  say  that  the 
proof  is  wholly  inferential.  But  the  inference  is 
drawn  from  such  a  vast  array  of  facts  that  it  is  well- 
nigh  irresistible.     It  is  the  legitimate  explanation  of 


34:6  DARWINIANA. 

those  arrangements  in  JS^ature  to  seciu'e  cross-fertiliza- 
tion in  the  species,  either  constantly  or  occasionally, 
which  are  so  general,  so  varied  and  diverse,  and,  we 
may  add,  so  exquisite  and  wonderful,  that,  once  pro- 
pounded, we  see  that  it  must  be  true/  What  else,  in- 
deed, is  the  meaning  and  use  of  sexual  reproduction  ? 
Is^ot  simply  increase  of  numbers  ;  for  that  is  otherwise 
effectually  provided  for  by  budding  propagation  in 
plants  and  many  of  the  lower  animals.  There  are 
plants,  indeed,  of  the  lower  sort  (such  as  diatoms),  in 
which  the  whole  multiplication  takes  place  in  this 
way,  and  with  great  rapidity.  These  also  have  sexual 
reproduction  ;  but  in  it  two  old  individuals  are  always 
destroyed  to  make  a  single  new  one  !  Here  propaga- 
tion diminishes  the  number  of  individuals  fifty  per 
cent.  Who  can  suppose  that  such  a  costly  process  as 
this,  and  that  all  the  exquisite  arrangements  for  cross- 
fertilization  in  hermaphrodite  plants,  do  not  subserve 
some  most  important  purpose  ?  How  and  why  the 
union  of  two  organisms,  or  generally  of  two  very  mi- 

*  Here  an  article  would  be  in  place,  explaining  the  arrangements  in 
Nature  for  cross-fertilization,  or  wide-breeding,  in  plants,  through  the 
agency,  sometimes  of  the  winds,  but  more  commonly  of  insects ;  the 
more  so,  since  the  development  of  the  principle,  the  appreciation  of  its 
importance,  and  its  confirmation  by  abundant  facts,  are  mainly  due  to 
Mr.  Darwin.  But  our  reviews  and  notices  of  his  early  work  *'  On  the 
Contrivances  in  Nature  for  the  Fertilization  of  Orchids  by  Means  of 
Insects,"  in  1862,  and  his  various  subsequent  papers  upon  other  parta 
of  this  subject,  are  either  to  otechnical  or  too  fragmentary  or  spe- 
cial to  be  here  reproduced.  Indeed,  a  popular  essay  is  now  hardly 
needed,  since  the  topic  has  been  fully  presented,  of  late  years,  in  the 
current  popular  and  scientific  journals,  and  in  common  educational 
works  and  text-books,  so  that  it  is  in  the  way  of  becoming  a  part — and 
a  most  inviting  part — of  ordinary  botanical  instruction. 


DURATION  OF  SPECIES.  3^7 

nute  portions  of  tliem,  should  reenforce  vitality,  wo 
do  not  know,  and  can  hardly  conjecture.  But  this 
must  be  the  meaning  of  sexual  reproduction. 

-  The  conclusion  of  the  matter,  from  the  scientific 
point  of  view,  is,  that  sexually-propagated  varieties  or 
races,  although  liable  to  disappear  through  change, 
need  not  be  expected  to  wear  out,  and  there  is  no  proof 
that  they  do ;  but,  that  non-sexually  propagated  va- 
rieties, though  not  especially  liable  to  change,  may 
tJieoretically  be  expected  to  wear  out,  but  to  be  a  very 
long  time  about  it. 


II. 

Do  Species  wear  out  f  and  if  not,  why  not  f 

The  question  we  have  just  been  considering  was 
merely  whether  races  are,  or  may  be,  as  enduring  as 
sjDecies.  As  to  the  inherently  unlimited  existence  of 
species  themselves,  or  the  contrary,  this,  as  we  have 
said,  is  a  geological  and  very  speculative  problem.  Not 
a  few  geologists  and  naturalists,  however,  have  con- 
cluded, or  taken  for  granted,  that  species  have  a  natu- 
ral term  of  existence — that  they  cuhninate,  decline, 
and  disappear  through  exhaustion  of  specific  vitality, 
or  some  equivalent  internal  cause.  As  might  be  ex- 
pected from  the  nature  of  the  inquiry,  the  facts  which 
bear  upon  the  question  are  far  from  decisive.  If  the 
fact  that  species  m  general  have  not  been  interminable, 
but  that  one  after  another  in  long  succession  has  be- 
come extinct,  would  seem  to  warrant  this  conclusion, 
the  persistence  through  immense  periods  of  no  incon- 


348  DAEWINIANA. 

siderable  niiinber  of  the  lower  forms  of  vegetable  and 
animal  life,  and  of  a  few  of  the  higher  plants  from 
the  Tertiary  period  to  the  present,  tells  even  more  di- 
rectly for  the  limitless  existence  of  species.  The.  dis- 
appearance is  quite  compatible  with  the  latter  view  ; 
while  the  persistence  of  any  species  is  hardly  explicable 
npon  any  other.  So  that,  even  mider  the  common  l)e- 
lief  of  the  entire  stability  and  essential  inflexibility  of 
species,  extinction  is  more  likely  to  have  been  acciden- 
tal than  predetermined,  and  the  doctrine  of  inherent 
limitation  is  unsupported  by  positive  evidence. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  implication  of  the  Dar- 
winian doctrine  that  species  are  essentially  unlimited 
in  existence.  When  they  die  out — as  sooner  or  later 
any  species  may — the  verdict  must  be  accidental  death, 
under  stress  of  adverse  circumstances,  not  exhaustion 
of  vitality ;  and,  commonly,  when  the  species  seems  to 
die  out,  it  will  rather  have  suffered  change.  For  the 
stock  of  vitality  which  enables  it  to  vary  and  survive 
in  changed  forms  under  changed  circumstances  must 
be  deemed  sufficient  for  a  continued  unchanged  exist- 
ence under  unaltered  conditions.  And,  indeed,  the 
advancement  from  simpler  to  more  complex,  wliich 
upon  the  theory  must  have  attended  the  diversification, 
would  warrant  or  require  the  supposition  of  increase 
instead  of  diminution  of  power  from  age  to  age. 

The  only  case  we  call  to  mind  which,  under  the 
Darwinian  view,  might  be  intei'preted  as  a  dying  out 
from  inherent  causes,  is  that  of  a  species  which  refuses 
to  vary,  and  thus  lacks  the  capacity  of  adaptation  to 
altering  conditions.  Under  altering  conditions,  this 
lack  Would  be  fatal.     But  this  would  be  the  fatality 


DURATION  OF  SPFGIES.  349 

of  807716  species  or  form  in  particular,  not  of  species 
or  forms  generally,  which,  for  the  most  part,  may  and 
do  vary  sufficiently,  and  in  varying  survive,  seeming- 
ly none  the  worse,  but  rather  the  better,  for  their 
long  tenure  of  life. 

The  opposite  idea,  however,  is  maintained  by  M. 
J^audin,^  in  a  detailed  exposition  of  his  own  views  of 
evolution,  which  differ  widely  from  those  of  Darwin 
in  most  respects,  and  notably  in  excluding  that  which, 
in  our  day,  gives  to  the  subject  its  first  claim  to  scien- 
tific (as  distinguished  from  purely  speculative)  atten- 
tion ;  namely,  natural  selection.  Instead  of  the  causes 
or  operations  collectively  personified  under  this  term, 
and  which  are  capable  of  exact  or  probable  apprecia- 
tion, M.  Naudin  invokes  "  the  two  principles  of 
rhythm  and  of  the  decrease  of  forces  in  E^ature." 
He  is  a  thorough  evolutionist,  stai-ting  from  essential- 
ly the  same  point  with  Darwin ;  for  he  conceives  of 
all  the  forms  or  species  of  animals  and  plants  "comme 
tire  tout  entier  d'un  protoplasma  primordial,  uniform, 
instable,  eminemment  plastique."  Also  in  ''  I'integra- 
tion  croissante  de  la  force  evolutive  a  mesure  qu'elle 
se  partage  dans  les  formes  produites,  et  la  decrois- 
sance  proportionelle  de  la  plasticite  de  ces  formes  a 
mesui'e  qu'elles  s'eloignent  davantage  de  leur  ori- 
gine,  et  qu'elles  sont  mieux  arretees."  As  they  get 
older,  they  gain  in  fixity  through  the  operation  of  the 

^  "  Les  Especes  affines  et  la  Theorie  de  I'Evolution,"  par  Cliarlea 
Naudin,  Membra  de  I'lnstitut,  in  Bulletin  de  la  Socieie  Botanique  de 
France^  tome  xxi.,  pp.  240-2*72,  ISYi.  See  also  Comptes  Baidus,  Sep- 
tember 27  and  October  4,  1875,  reproduced  in  "  Annales  des  Sciences 
Naturelles,"  1876,  pp.  73-81. 


350  DARWINIANA. 

fundamental  law  of  inlieritance  ;  but  the  species,  like 
the  individual,  loses  plasticity  and  vital  force.  To 
continue  in  the  language  of  the  original : 

"  C'est  dire  qu'il  y  a  eu,  pour  I'ensemble  du  monde  orga- 
nique,  une  periode  de  formatioD  oti  tout  etait  changeant  et  mo- 
bile, une  phase  analogue  a  la  vie  embryonnaire  et  a  la  jeunesse 
de  cbaque  ^tre  particulier ;  et  qu'a  cet  age  de  mobilite  et  de 
croissance  a  succ6de  une  periode  de  stabilite,  au  moins  relative, 
une  sorte  d'age  adulte,  oti  la  force  Evolutive,  ayant  achev6  son 
oeuvre,  n'est  plus  occupee  qu'a  la  maintenir,  sans  pouvoir  pro- 
duire  d'organismes  nouveaux.  Limitee  en  quantity,  comme 
toutes  les  forces  en  jeu  dans  une  planete  ou  dans  un  systeme 
sideral  tout  entier,  cette  force  n'a  pu  accomplir  qu'un  travail 
limite ;  et  du  m^me  qu'un  organisme,  animal  ou  vegetal,  ne 
croit  pas  indefiniment  et  qu'il  ^'arrete  a  des  proportions  que 
rien  ne  pent  faire  depasser,  de  mfeme  aussi  I'organisme  total  de 
la  nature  s'est  arr^te  a  un  etat  d'equilibre,  dont  la  duree,  selon 
toutes  vraisemblances,  doit  etre  beaucoup  plus  longue  que  cello 
de  la  phase  de  developpement  et  de  croissance. 

A  fixed  amount  of  ^'  evolutive  force  "  is  given,  to 
begin  with.  At  first  enomious,  because  none  has 
been  used  up  in  work,  it  is  necessarily  enfeebled  in 
the  currents  into  which  the  stream  divides,  and  the 
narrower  and  narrower  channels  in  which  it  flows 
with  slowly-diminishing  power.  Hence  the  limited 
although  very  unequal  duration  of  all  individuals,  of 
all  species,  and  of  all  types  of  organization.  A  mul- 
titude of  forms  have  disappeared  already,  and  the 
number  of  species,  far  from  increasing,  as  some  have 
believed,  must,  on  the  contrary,  be  diminishing.  Some 
species,  no  doubt,  have  suffered  death  by  violence  or 
accident,  by  geological  changes,  local  alteration  of  the 
conditions,  or  the  direct  or  indirect  attacks  of  other 


DURATION  OF  SPECIES.  351 

species ;  but  tliese  liave  only  anticipated  tlieir  fate, 
for  M.  Naudin  contends  that  most  of  the  extinct 
species  liave  died  a  natural  death  from  exhaustion  of 
force,  and  that  all  the  survivors  are  on  the  way  to  it. 
The  gi-eat  timepiece  of  Nature  was  wound  up  at  the 
beginning,  and  is  running  down.  In  the  earlier 
stages  of  great  plasticity  and  exuberant  power,  diver- 
sification took  place  freely,  but  only  in  definite  lines, 
and  species  and  types  multiplied.  As  the  power  of 
survival  is  inherently  limited,  still  more  the  power  of 
change :  this  diminishes  in  time,  if  we  rightly  appre- 
hend the  idea,  partly  through  the  waning  of  vital 
force,  partly  through  the  fixity  acquired  by  heredity 
— like  producing  like,  the  more  certainly  in  propor- 
tion to  the  length  and  continuity  of  the  ancestral 
chain.  And  so  the  small  variations  of  species  which 
we  behold  are  the  feeble  remnants  of  the  pristine 
plasticity  and  an  exhausted  force. ^  This  force  of 
variation  or  origination  of  forms  has  acted  rhytlimi- 
cally  or  intermittently,  because  each  movement  was 
the  result  of  the  rupture  of  an  equilibrium,  the  liber- 

*  In  noticing  M,  Naudin's  paper  in  the  Comptes  Rcndus^  now  re- 
printed in  the  "Annales  des  Sciences  Naturelles,"  entitled  "  Yaiiation 
desordonnee  des  Plantes  Hybrides  et  Deductions  qu'on  pent  en  tircr," 
we  were  at  a  loss  to  conceive  why  he  attributed  all  present  variation  of 
species  to  atavism,  i.  e.,  to  the  reappearance  of  ancestral  characters 
(^American  Journal  of  Science,  February,  1876).  His  anterior  paper 
was  not  then  known  to  us  ;  from  which  it  now  appears  that  this  view 
comes  in  as  a  part  of  the  hypothesis  of  extreme  plasticity  and  variabil- 
ity at  the  first,  subsiding  at  length  into  entire  fixity  and  persistence  of 
character.  According  to  which,  it  is  assumed  that  the  species  of  our 
time  have  lost  all  power  of  original  variation,  but  can  still  reproduce 
some  old  ones — some  reminiscences,  as  it  were,  of  youthful  vagaries — 
in  the  way  of  atavism. 


352  DAEWmiANA, 

ation  of  a  force  wliicli  till  then  was  retained  in  a  po- 
tential state  by  some  opposing  force  or  obstacle,  over- 
coming which,  it  passes  to  a  new  equilibrium,  and  so 
on.  Hence  alternations  of  djTiamic  activity  and 
static  repose,  of  origination  of  species  and  types,  al- 
ternated with  periods  of  stability  or  fixity.  The  time- 
piece does  not  run  down  regularly,  but  ''  la  force  pro- 
cede  par  saccades ;  et  .  .  .  .  par  pulsations  d'autant 
plus  energiques  que  la  nature  etait  plus  pres  de  son 
commencement." 

Such  is  the  hypothesis.  For  a  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, this  is  singularly  unlike  Darwin's  in  most  re- 
spects, and  particularly  in  the  kind  of  causes  invoked 
and  speculations  indulged  in.  But  we  are  not  here 
to  comment  upon  it  beyond  the  particular  point  under 
consideration,  namely,  its  doctrine  of  the  inherently 
limited  duration  of  species.  This  comes,  it  will  be 
noticed,  as  a  deduction  from  the  modern  physical 
doctrine  of  the  equivalence  of  force.  The  reasoning 
is  ingenious,  but,  if  we  mistake  not,  fallacious. 

To  call  that  "  evolutive  force  "  which  produces  the 
change  of  one  kind  of  plant  or  animal  into  another,  is 
simple  and  easy,  but  of  little  help  by  way  of  explana- 
tion. To  homologize  it  with  physical  force,  as  M. 
ITaudin's  argument  requires,  is  indeed  a  step,  and  a 
hardy  one ;  but  it  quite  invalidates  the  argument. 
For,  if  the  "  evolutive  force  "  is  a  part  of  the  physical 
force  of  the  universe,  of  which,  as  he  reminds  us,  the 
sum  is  fixed  and  the  tendency  is  toward  a  stable  equi- 
librium in  which  all  change  is  to  end,  then  this  evo- 
lutive was  derived  from  the  physical  force  ;  and  why 
not  still  derivable  from  it  'i     "What  is  to  prevent  its 


DURATION  OF  SPECIES.  353 

replenisliment  in  YQgQiaiioTi^imri passu  with  tliat  great 
operation  in  which  physical  force  is  stored  up  in  vege- 
table organisms,  and  by  the  expenditure  or  transfoiTaa- 
tion  of  which  their  work,  and  that  of  all  animals,  is 
carried  on  ?  Whatever  be  the  cause  (if  any  there  be) 
which  determines  the  decadence  and  death  of  species, 
one  cannot  well  believe  that  it  is  a  consequence  of  a 
dmiinution  of  their  proper  force  by  plant-development 
and  division ;  for  instance,  that  the  sum  of  what  is 
called  vital  force  in  a  full-grown  tree  is  not  greater, 
instead  of  less,  than  that  in  the  seedling,  and  in  the 
grove  greater  than  in  the  single  parental  tree.  This 
power,  if  it  be  properly  a  force,  is  doubtless  as  truly 
derived  from  the  sunbeam  as  is  the  power  which  the 
plant  and  animal  expend  in  work.  Here,  then,  is  a 
source  of  replenishment  as  lasting  as  the  sun  itself, 
and  a  ground — so  far  as  a  supply  of  force  is  concerned 
— for  indefinite  duration.  For  all  that  any  one  can 
mean  by  the  indefinite  existence  of  species  is,  that  they 
may  (for  all  that  yet  appears)  continue  while  the  exter- 
nal conditions  of  their  being  or  well-being  continue. 

Perhaps,  however,  M.  I^audin  does  not  mean  that 
"  evolutive  force,"  or  the  force  of  vitality,  is  really 
homologous  with  common  physical  force,  but  only 
something  which  may  be  likened  to  it.  In  that  case 
the  parallel  has  only  a  metaphorical  value,  and  the  rea- 
son why  variation  must  cease  and  species  die  out  is 
still  to  seek.  In  short,  if  that  which  continues  the 
series  of  individuals  in  propagation,  whether  like  or 
unlike  the  parents,  be  a  force  in  the  physical  sense  of 
the  term,  then  there  is  abundant  provision  in  Nature 
for  its  indefinite  replenishment.     If,  rather,  it  be  a 


354  DARWINIANA. 

part  or  phase  of  that  something  which  directs  and  de- 
termines the  expenditure  of  force,  then  it  is  not  subject 
to  the  laws  of  the  latter,  and  there  is  no  ground  for 
inferring  its  exhaustibility.  The  limited  vitality  is  an 
unproved  and  unprovable  conjecture.  The  evolutive 
force,  dying  out  in  the  using,  is  either  the  same  con- 
jecture repeated,  or  a  misapplied  analogy. 

After  all — apart  from  speculative  analogies — the 
only  evidences  we  possess  w^hich  indicate  a  tendency 
in  species  to  die  out,  are  those  to  which  Mr.  Darwin 
has  called  attention.  These  are,  first,  the  observed 
deterioration  which  results,  at  least  in  animals,  from 
continued  breeding  in  and  in,  which  may  possibly  be 
resolvable  into  cumulative  heritable  disease ;  and, 
secondly,  as  already  stated  (p.  346),  what  may  be 
termed  the  sedulous  and  elaborate  pains  everywhere 
taken  in  Mature  to  prevent  close  breeding — arrange- 
ments which  are  particularly  prominent  in  plants,  the 
greater  number  of  which  bear  hermaphrodite  blossoms. 
The  importance  of  this  may  be  inferred  from  the  uni- 
versality, variety,  and  practical  perfection  of  the  ar- 
rangements which  secure  the  end  ;  and  the  inference 
may  fairly  be  drawn  that  this  is  the  physiological  im- 
port of  sexes. 

It  follows  from  this  that  there  is  a  tendency,  seem- 
ingly inherent,  in  species  as  in  individuals,  to  die  out ; 
but  that  this  tendency  is  counteracted  or  checked  by 
sexual  wider  breeding,  which  is,  on  the  whole,  amply 
secured  in  Nature,  and  which  in  some  way  or  other 
reenforces  vitality  to  such  an  extent  as  to  warrant 
Darwin's  inference  that  "  some  unknown  great  good 
is  derived  from  the  union  of  individuals  which  have 


DURATION  OF  SPECIES.  355 

been  kept  distinct  for  many  generations."  Wlietlier 
tliis  reenforcement  is  a  complete  preventive  of  de- 
crepitude in  species,  or  only  a  palliative,  is  more  tlian 
we  can  determine.  If  the  latter,  then  existing  species 
and  their  derivatives  must  perish  in  time,  and  the 
earth  may  be  growing  poorer  in  species,  as  M.  Naudin 
supposes,  through  mere  senility.  If  the  former,  then 
the  earth,  if  not  even  growing  richer,  may  be  expected 
to  hold  its  own,  and  extant  species  or  their  derivatives 
should  last  as  long  as  the  physical  world  lasts  and 
affords  favorable  conditions.  General  analogies  seem 
to  favor  the  former  view.  Such  facts  as  we  possess, 
and  the  Darwinian  hypothesis,  favor  the  latter. 


XIII. 

EVOLUTIONAET   TELEOLOGY. 

When  Cuvier  spoke  of  tlie  "  combination  of  organs 
in  such  order  that  they  may  be  in  consistence  with  the 
part  which  the  animal  has  to  play  in  ITatnre,"  his  op- 
ponent, Geoff roy  St.-Hilaire,  rejoined,  "  I  know  noth- 
ing of  animals  which  have  to  play  a  part  in  jN^ature." 
The  discussion  was  a  notable  one  in  its  day.  From 
that  time  to  this,  the  reaction  of  moi'phology  against 
"  final  causes  "  has  not  rarely  gone  to  the  extent  of 
denying  the  need  and  the  propriety  of  assuming  ends 
in  the  study  of  animal  and  vegetable  organizations. 
Especially  in  our  o^ti  day,  when  it  became  apparent 
that  the  actual  use  of  an  organ  might  not  be  the  funda- 
mental reason  of  its  existence — that  one  and  the  same 
organ,  morphologically  considered,  was  modified  in  dif- 
ferent cases  to  the  most  diverse  uses,  while  intrinsically 
different  organs  subserved  identical  functions,  and  con- 
sequently that  use  was  a  fallacious  and  homology  the 
surer  guide  to  correct  classification — it  was  not  sur- 
prising that  teleological  ideas  nearly  disappeared  from 
natural  history.  Probably  it  is  still  generally  thought 
that  the  school  of  Cuvier  and  that  of  St.-Hilaire  have 
nteither  common  ground  nor  capability  of  reconcile- 
ment. 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  357 

In  a  review  of  Darwin's  volnme  on  tlie  "  Fertiliza- 
tion of  Orchids"^  (too  technical  and  too  detailed  for 
reproduction  here),  and  Later  in  a  brief  sketch  of  the 
character  of  his  scientific  work  (art.  x.,  p.  281),  we 
expressed  our  sense  of  the  great  gain  to  science  from 
his  having  brought  back  teleology  to  natural  history. 
In  Darwinism,  usefulness  and  purpose  come  to  the 
front  again  as  working  principles  of  the  first  order ; 
upon  them,  indeed,  the  whole  system  rests. 

To  most,  this  restoration  of  teleology  has  come 
from  an  unexpected  quarter,  and  in  an  unwonted  guise ; 
so  that  the  first  look  of  it  is  by  no  means  reassuring  to 
the  minds  of  those  who  cherish  theistic  views  of  JS^a- 
ture.  Adaptations  irresistibly  suggesting  pui*pose  had 
their  supreme  application  in  natural  theology.  Being 
manifold,  particular,  and  exquisite,  and  evidently  in- 
wrought into  the  whole  system  of  the  organic  world, 
they  were  held  to  furnish  irrefragable  as  well  as  inde- 
pendent proof  of  a  personal  designer,  a  divine  origi- 
nator of  ISTature.  By  a  confusion  of  thought,  now  ob- 
vious, but  at  the  time  not  unnatural,  they  were  also 
regarded  as  proof  of  a  direct  execution  of  the  contriv- 
ver's  purpose  in  the  creation  of  each  organ  and  organ- 
ism, as  it  were,  in  the  manner  man  contrives  and  puts 
together  a  machine — an  idea  which  has  been  set  up  as 
the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  which  to  St.  Augustine  and 
other  learned  Christian  fathers  would  have  savored 
of  heterodoxy. 

In  the  doctrine  of  the  origination  of  species  through 
natural  selection,  these  adaptations  appear  as  the  out- 
come rather  than  as  the  motive,  as  final  results  rather 

»  London,  1862. 
16 


358  DARWrniANA. 

tlian  final  causes.  Adaptation  to  use,  although  the 
very  essence  of  Darwinism,  is  not  a  fixed  and  inflex- 
ible adaptation,  realized  once  for  all  at  the  outset ;  it 
includes  a  long  progression  and  succession  of  modifi- 
cations, adjusting  themselves  to  changing  circum- 
stances, under  which  they  may  be  more  and  more  di- 
versified, specialized,  and  in  a  .just  sense  perfected. 
]^ow,  the  question  is.  Does  this  involve  the  destruction 
or  only  the  reconstruction  of  om^  consecrated  ideas  of 
teleology  ?  Is  it  compatible  with  our  seemingly  inborn 
conception  of  Nature  as  an  ordered  system  ?  Further- 
more, and  above  all,  can  the  Darwinian  theory  itself 
dispense  with  the  idea  of  purpose,  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  the  word,  as  tantamount  to  design  ? 

From  two  opposing  sides  .we  hear  the  first  two 
questions  answered  in  the  negative.  And  an  affirma- 
tive response  to  the  third  is  directly  implied  in  the 
following  citation  : 

"The  word  pv.rpose  has  been  used  in  a  sense  to  which  it  is, 
perhaps,  worth  while  to  call  attention.  Adaptation  of  means 
to  an  end  may  be  provided  in  two  ways  that  we  at  present 
know  of:  by  processes  of  natural  selection,  and  by  the  agency  of 
an'  intelligence  in  which  an  image  or  idea  of  the  end  preceded 
the  use  of  the  means.  In  both  cases  the  existence  of  the  adap- 
tation is  accounted  for  by  the  necessity  or  utility  of  the  end. 
It  seems  to  me  convenient  to  use  the  word  purpose  as  meaning 
generally  the  end  to  which  certain  means  are  adapted,  both  in 
these  two  cases  and  in  any  other  that  may  hereafter  become 
known,  provided  only  that  the  adaptation  is  accounted  for  by 
the  necessity  or  utility  of  the  end.  And  there  seems  no  objec- 
tion to  the  use  of  the  phrase  '  final  cause '  in  this  wider  sense,  if 
it  is  to  be  kept  at  all.  The  word  '  design '  might  then  be  kept 
for  tlie  special  case  of  adaptation  by  an  intelligence.     And  we 


EVOLUTIOXAEY  TELEOLOGY.  359 

may  then  say  that,  since  the  process  of  natural  selection  ha3 
been  understood,  purpose  has  ceased  to  suggest  design  to  in- 
structed people,  except  in  cases  where  the  agency  of  man  is 
independently  probable." — P.  0.  W.,  in  the  Contemjjorary  lie- 
view  for  September,  1875,  p.  G57. 

The  distinction  made  by  this  anonymous  writer  is 
convenient  and  useful,  and  his  statement  clear.  ^\"e 
propose  to  adopt  this  use  of  the  ierm^  purjyose  and  de- 
sign,  and  to  examine  the  allegation.  The  latter  comes 
to  this  :  "  Processes  of  natural  selection  "  exclude  "  the 
agency  of  an  intelligence  in  which  the  image  or  idea 
of  the  end  precedes  the  use  of  the  means ;  ".  and  since 
the  former  have  been  understood  ''purpose  has  ceased 
to  suggest  design  to  instructed  people,  except  in  cases 
where  the  agency  of  man  is  independently  probable." 
The  maxim  ^'  Uliomme  jprojpose^  Dieu  disjpose^''  under 
this  reading  means  that  the  former  has  the  monopoly 
of  design,  while  the  latter  accomplishes  without  de- 
signing.    Man's  works  alone  suggest  design. 

But  it  is  clear  to  us  that  this  monopoly  is  shared 
with  certain  beings  of  inferior  grade.  Granting  that 
quite  possibly  the  capture  of  flies  for  food  by  Dioncea 
and  the  sundews  may  be  attributed  to  purpose  apart 
from  design  (if  it 'be  practicable  in  the  last  resort  to 
maintain  this  now  convenient  distinction),  still  their 
capture  by  a  spider' s-web,  and  by  a  swallow  on  the 
wing,  can  hardly  "cease  to  suggest  design  to  in- 
structed people."  And  surely,  in  coming  at  his  mas- 
ter's call,  the  dog  fulfills  his  own  design  as  well  as 
that  of  his  master;  and  so  of  other  actions  and  con- 
structions of  brute  animals. 

Without  doubt  so  acute  a  writer  has  a  clear  and 


360  DARWINIANA. 

sensible  meaning ;  so  we  conclude  that  he  regards 
brutes  as  automata,  and  was  thinking  of  design  as  co- 
extensive merely  with  general  conceptions.  Not  con- 
cerning ourselves  with  the  difficulty  he  may  have  in 
drawing  a  line  between  the  simpler  judgments  and 
affections  of  man  and  those  of  the  highest-endowed 
brutes,  we  subserve  our  immediate  ends  by  remarking 
that  the  automatic  theory  would  seem  to  be  one 
which  can  least  of  all  dispense  with  design,  since, 
either  in  the  literal  or  current  sense  of  the  word,  un- 
designed automatism  is,  as  near  as  may  be,  a  contra- 
diction in  tenns.  As  the  automaton  man  constructs 
manifests  the  designs  of  its  maker  and  mover,  so  the 
more  efficient  automata  which  man  did  not  construct 
would  not  legitimately  suggest  less  than  human  intel- 
ligence. And  so  all  adaptations  in  the  animal  and 
vegetable  world  which  irresistibly  suggest  purpose 
(in  the  sense  now  accepted)  would  also  suggest  de- 
sign, and,  under  the  law  of  parsimony,  claim  to  be 
thus  intei'preted,  unless  some  other  hypothesis  will 
better  account  for  the  facts.  AVe  will  consider,  pres- 
ently, if  any  other  does  so. 

AYe  here  claim  only  that  some  beings  other  than 
men  design,  and  that  the  adaptations  of  means  to  ends 
in  the  structure  of  animals  and  plants,  in  so  far  as 
they  carry  the  marks  of  purpose,  carry  also  the  impli- 
cation of  having  been  designed.  Also,  that  the  idea 
^r  hypothesis  of  a  designing  mind,  as  the  author  of 
ISTature — however  we  came  by  it — having  possession 
of  the  field,  and  being  one  which  man,  himself  a  de- 
signer, seemingly  must  needs  form,  cannot  be  rivaled 
except  by  some  other  equally  adequate  for  explana- 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  3G1 

tion,  or  displaced  except  by  Bhowing  the  illegitimacy 
of  tlie  inference.  As  to  the  latter,  is  the  comnioii 
apprehension  and  sense  of  mankind  in  this  regard  well 
grounded  ?  Can  we  rightly  reason  from  oiu*  own  in- 
telligence and  powers  to  a  higher  or  a  supreme  intel- 
ligence ordering  and  shaping  the  system  of  Nature  ? 

A  very  able  and  ingenious  writer  upon  "  The  Evi- 
dences of  Design  in  Nature,"  in  the  Westminster  He- 
view  for  July,  1875,  maintains  the  negative.  His 
article  may  be  taken  as  the  argument  in  support  of 
the  position  assumed  by  "  P.  C.  W.,"  in  the  Contem- 
jporary  Review  above  cited.  It  opens  with  the  ad- 
mission that  the  orthodox  view  is  the  most  simple  and 
apparently  convincing,  has  had  for  centuries  the  un- 
hesitating assent  of  an  immense  majority  of  thinkers, 
and  that  the  latest  master-writer  upon  the  subject  dis- 
posed to  reject  it,  namely,  Mill,  comes  to  the  conclu- 
sion that,  "in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge, 
the  adaptations  in  Nature  afford  a  large  balance  of 
probability  in  favor  of  creation  by  intelligence."  It 
proceeds  to  attack  not  so  much  the  evidence  in  favor 
of  design  as  the  foundation  upon  which  tlie  whole 
doctiine  rests,  and  closes  with  the  prediction  that 
sooner  or  later  the  superstructure  must  fall.  And, 
truly,  if  his  reasonings  are  legitimate,  and  his  con- 
clusions just,  "  Science  has  laid  the  axe  to  the  tree." 

"  Given  a  set  of  marks  which  we  look  upon  in  human  pro-, 
ductions  as  unfailing  indications  of  design,"  he  asks,  "is  not  the 
inference  equally  legitimate  when  we  recognize  these  marks  in 
Nature?  To  gaze  on  such  a  universe  as  this,  to  feel  our  hearts 
exult  within  us  in  the  fullness  of  existence,  and  to  olTor  in  ex- 
planation  of  such   beneficent  provision  no  other   word   but 


362'  DARWINIANA. 

Chance^  seems  as  unthankful  and  iniquitous  as  it  seems  absurd. 
Chance  produces  nothing  in  the  human  sphere ;  nothing,  at 
least,  that  can  be  relied  upon  for  good.  Design  alone  engen- 
ders harmony,  consistency  ;  and  Chance  not  only  never  is  the 
T^arent,  but  is  constantly  the  enemy  of  these.  How,  then,  can 
we  suppose  Chance  to  be  the  author  of  a  system  in  which  every- 
thing is  as  regular  as  clock-work?  ....  The  hypothesis  of 
Chance  is  inadmissible." 

There  is,  tlien,  in  ^Nature,  an  order ;  and,  in  '^  P. 
C.  "W.'s"  sense  of  tlie  word,  a  manifest  purpose. 
Some  sort  of  conception  as  to  tlie  cause  of  it  is  inevi- 
table, that  of  design  first  and  foremost.  ""Why" — 
the  Westmiiister  Reviewer  repeats  the  question — 
*'  why,  if  the  marks  of  utility  and  adaptation  are  con- 
clusive in  the  works  of  man,  should  they  not  be  con- 
sidered equally  conclusive  in  the  works  of  ^Nature  ? " 
His  answer  appears  to  us  more  ingenious  than  sound. 
Because,  referring  to  Paley's  watch, — 

"The  watch-finder  is  not  guided  solely  in  his  inference  by 
marks  of  adaptation  and  utility ;  he  would  recognize  design  in 
half  a  watch,  in  a  mere  fragment  of  a  watch,  just  as  surely  as 
in  a  whole  time-keeper.  .  .  .  Two  cog-wheels,  grasping  each 
other,  will  be  thought  conclusive  evidence  of  design,  quite  in- 
dependently of  any  use  attaching  to  them.  And  the  inference, 
indeed,  is  perfectly  correct ;  only  it  is  an  inference,  not  from  a 
mark  of  design,  properly  so  called,  but  from  a  mark  of  human 
workmanship.  .  .  .  N'o  more  is  needed  for  the  watch-finder, 
since  all  the  works  of  man  are,  at  the  same  time,  products  of 
design ;  but  a  great  deal  more  is  requisite  for  us,  who  are  called 
upon  by  Paley  to  recognize  design  in  works  in  which  this 
stamp,  this  label  of  human  workmanship,  is  wanting.  The 
mental  operation  required  in  the  one  case  is  radically -difterent 
from  that  performed  in  the  other;  there  is  no  parallel,  and 
Palsy's  demonstration  is  totally  irrelevant."  * 

*  Hume,  in  bis  "Essays,"  anticipated  this  argument.    But  he  did 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  3G3 

But,  surely,  all  liuman  doings  are  not  "  products 
of  design ; "  many  are  contingent  or  accidental.  And 
why  not  suppose  that  the  linder  of  the  watch,  or 
of  the  watch-wheel,  infers  Ijoth  design  and  human 
workmanship  ?  The  two  are  mutually  exclusive  only 
on- the  supposition  that  man  alone  is  a  designer, 
which  is  simply  begging  the  question  in  discussion. 
If  the  watch-finder's  attention  had  been  arrested  bv 

not  rest  on  it.  His  matured  convictions  appear  to  be  expressed  in 
statements  such  as  the  following,  here  cited  at  second  hand  from  Jack- 
son's "Philosophy  of  Natural  Theology,"  a  volume  to  which  a  friend 
has  just  called  our  attention : 

*'  Though  the  stupidity  of  men,"  writes  Hume,  "barbarous  and  un- 
instructed,  be  so  great  that  they  may  not  see  a  sovereign  author  in  the 
more  obvious  works  of  Nature,  to  which  they  are  so  much  familiarized, 
yet  it  scarce  seems  possible  that  any  one  of  good  understanding  should 
reject  that  idea,  when  once  it  is  suggested  to  him.  A  purpose,  an  in- 
tention, a  design,  is  evident  in  everything ;  and  when  our  comprehen- 
sion is  so  far  enlarged  as  to  contemplate  the  first  rise  of  this  visible 
system,  we  must  adopt,  with  the  strongest  conviction,  the  idea  of  some 
intelligent  cause  or  author.  The  uniform  maxims,  too,  which  prevail 
throughout  the  whole  frame  of  the  universe,  naturally,  if  not  neces- 
sarily, lead  us  to  conceive  this  intelligence  as  single  and  undivided, 
where  the  prejudices  of  education  oppose  not  so  reasonable  a  theory. 
Even  the  contrarieties  of  Nature,  by  discovering  themselves  every- 
where, become  proofs  of  some  consistent  plan,  and  establish  one  single 
purpose  or  intention,  however  inexplicable  and  incomprehensible." — 
("  Natural  History  of  Religion,"  xv.) 

"  In  many  views  of  the  universe,  and  of  its  parts,  particularly  the 
latter,  the  beauty  and  fitness  of  final  causes  strike  us  with  such  irre- 
sistible force  that  all  objections  appear  (what  I  believe  they  really  arc) 
mere  cavils  and  sophisms." — ("  Dialogues  concerning  Natural  Religion," 
Part  X.) 

"The  order  and  arrangement  of  Nature,  the  curious  adjustment  of 
final  causes,  the  plain  use  and  intention  of  every  part  and  organ,  all 
these  bespeak  in  the  clearest  language  an  intelligent  cause  or  author." 
—(Ibid.,  Part  IV.) 


364  DARWmiANA. 

a  (lifferent  object,  sucli  as  a  spider's  web,  lie  would 
have  inferred  both  design  and  non-human  workman- 
ship. Of  some  objects  he  might  be  uncertain  wheth- 
er thej  were  of  human  origin  or  not,  without  ever 
doubting  thej  were  designed, '  while  of  others  this 
might  remain  doubtful.  ]^or  is  man's  recognition  of 
human  workmanship,  or  of  any  other,  dependent  upon 
his  comprehending  how  it  was  done,  or  what  particu- 
lar ends  it  subserves.  Such  considerations  make  it 
clear  that  "  the  label  of  human  workmanship  "  is  not 
the  generic  stamp  from  which  man  infers  design.  It 
seems  equally  clear  that  "the  mental  operation  re- 
quired in  the  one  case  "  is  not  so  radically  or  materially 
"  different  from  that  performed  in  the  other  "  as  this 
writer  would  have  us  suppose.  The  judgment  re- 
specting a  spider's  web,  or  a  trap-door  spider's  dwell- 
ing, would  be  the  very  same  in  this  regard  if  it  pre- 
ceded, as  it  occasionally  might,  all  knowledge  of 
whether  the  object  met  with  were  of  human  or  ani- 
mal origin.  A  dam  across  a  stream,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  the  stumps  of  trees  which  entered  into  its 
formation,  would  suggest  design  quite  irrespective  of 
and  antecedent  to  the  considerable  knowledge  or  ex- 
perience which  would  enable  the  beholder  to  decide 
whether  this  was  the  work  of  men  or  of  beavers. 
Why,  then,  should  the  judgment  that  any  particular 
structure  is  a  designed  work  be  thought  illegitimate 
when  attributed  to  a  higher  instead  of  a  lower  intelli- 
gence than  that  of  man  ?  It  might,  indeed,  be  so  if 
the  supposed  observer  had  no  conception  of  a  power 
and  intelligence  superior  to  his  own.  But  it  would 
\\iQn  be  more  than  "  irrelevant ; "   it  would  be  im- 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY,  3G5 

possible,  except  on  tlie  supposition  that  the  phenomena 
would  of  themselves  give  rise  to  such  an  inference. 
That  it  is  now  possible  to  make  the  inference,  and, 
indeed,  hardly  possible  not  to  make  it,  is  suflScient 
warrant  of  its  relevancy.  • 

It  may,  of  course,  be  rejoined  that,  if  this  impor- 
tant factor  is  given,  the  inference  yields  no  indepen- 
dent argument  of  a  divine  creator ;  and  it  may  also 
be  reasonably  urged  that  the  difference  between  things 
that  are  made  under  our  observation  and  comprehen- 
sion, and  things  that  grow,  but  have  originated  be- 
yond our  comprehension,  is  too  wide  for  a  sure  infer- 
ence from  the  one  to  the  other.  But  the  present 
question  involves  neither  of  these.  It  is  simply 
whether  the  argument  for  design  from  adaj^tations  in 
JS^ature  is  relevant,  not  whether  it  is  independent  or 
sure.  It  is  conceded  that  the  argument  is  analogical, 
and  the  parallel  incomplete.  But  the  gut  is  in  the 
points  that  are  parallel  or  similar.  Pulleys,  valves, 
and  such-like  elaborate  mechanical  adaptations,  can- 
not differ  greatly  in  meaning,  wherever  met  with. 

The  opposing  argument  is  repeated  and  pressed 
in  another  form : 

"  Tlie  evidepce  of  design  afforded  by  the  aiarks  of  adapta- 
tion in  works  of  human  competence  is  null  and  void  in  the  caso 
of  creation  itself.  .  .  .  Nature  is  full  of  adaptations ;  but  these 
are  valueless  to  us  as  traces  of  design,  unless  we  know  some- 
thing of  the  rival  adaptations  among  which  an  intelligent  being 
miffht  have  chosen.  To  assert  that  in  Nature  no  such  rival 
adaptations  existed,  and  that  in  every  case  the  useful  function 
in  question  could  be  established  by  no  other  instrument  but 
one,  is  simply  to  reason  in  a  circle,  since  it  is  solely  from  what 
we  find  existing  that  our  notions  of  possibility  and  impossi- 


36G  DARWINIANA, 

bility  are  drawn.  .  .  .  We  cannot  imagine  ourselves  in  the 
position  of  the  Creator  before  his  work  began,  nor  examine 
the  materials  among  which  he  had  to  choose,  nor  count  the 
laws  which  limited  his  operations.  Here  all  is  dark,  and  the 
inference  we  draw  from  the  seeming  perfections  of  the  exist- 
mg  instruments  or  means  is  a  measure  of  nothing  but  our  ig- 
norance." 

• 

Bat  the  question  is  not  about  tlie  perfection  of 
these  adaptations,  or  whether  others  might  have  been 
instituted  in  their  place.  It  is  simply  whether  ob- 
served adaptations  of  intricate  sorts,  admirably  sub- 
serving uses,  do  or  do  not  legitimately  suggest  to  one 
designing  mind  that  they  are  the  product  of  some 
other.  If  so,  no  amount  of  ignorance,  or  even  incon- 
ceivability, of  the  conditions  and  mode  of  production 
could  affect  the  validity  of  the  inference,  nor  could  it 
be  affected  by  any  misunderstanding  on  our  part  as 
to  what  the  particular  use  or  function  was ;  a  state- 
ment which  would  have  been  deemed  superfluous, 
except  for  the  following  : 

"  There  is  not  an  organ  in  our  bodies  but  what  has  passed, 
and  is  still  passing,  through  a  series  of  different  and  often  con- 
tradictory interpretations.  Our  lungs,  for  instance,  were  an- 
ciently conceived  to  be  a  kind  of  cooling  apparatus,  a  refriger- 
ator ;  at  the  close  of  the  last  century  they  were  supposed  to 
be  a  centre  of  combustion ;  and  nowadays  both  these  theories 
have  been  abandoned  for  a  third.  .  .  .  Have  these  changes 
modified  in  the  slightest  degree  the  supposed  evidence  of  de- 
sign?" 

We  have  not  the  least  idea  why  they  should.  So, 
also,  of  complicated  processes,  such  as  human  diges- 
tion, being  replaced  by  other  and  simpler  ones  in 
lower  animals,  or  even  in  certain  plants.     If  "  we 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  3f;7 

argue  the  necessity  of  every  adaptation  solely  from 
the  fact  that  it  exists,"  and  that  "  we  cannot  mutilate 
it  grossly  without  injury  to  the  function,"  we  do  not 
"  announce  triumphantly  that  digestion  is  impossible 
in  any  way  but  this,"  etc.,  but  see  equal  wisdom  and 
no  impugnment  of  design  in  any  number  of  simpler 
adaptations  accomplishing  equivalent  purposes  in  low- 
er animals. 

Finally,   adaptation  and    utility  being    the    only 
marks  of    design  in   Nature  which  we  possess,  and 
adaptation    only    as    subservient    to    usefulness,   the 
Westminster  Heviewer  shows  us  how — 

"  The  argument  from  utility  may  be  equally  refuted  another 
way.  "We  found  in  our  discussion  of  the  mark  of  adaptation 
that  the  positive  evidence  of  design  affojded  by  the  meclian- 
isms  of  the  human  frame  was  never  accompanied  by  the  possi- 
bility of  negative  evidence.  We  regarded  this  as  a  suspicious 
circumstance,  just  as  the  fox,  invited  to  attend  the  lion  in  his 
den,  was  deterred  from  his  visit  by  observing  that  all  the  foot- 
tracks  lay  in  one  direction.  The  same  suspicious  circumstance 
warns  us  now.  If  positive  evidence  of  design  be  afforded  by 
the  presence  of  a  faculty,  negative  evidence  of  design  ought 
to  be  afforded  by  the  absence  of  a  faculty.  This,  however,  is 
not  the  case."  [Then  follows  the  account  of  a  butterfly,  which, 
from  the  wonderful  power  of  the  males  to  find  the  females  at 
a  great  distance,  is  conceived  to  possess  a  sixth  sense.]  "  Do 
we  consider  the  deficiency  of  this  sixth  sense  in  man  as  the 
slightest  evidence  against  design  ?  Should  we  be  less  apt  to 
infer  creative  wisdom  if  wo  had  only  four  senses  instead  of 
five,  or  three  instead  of  four?  No,  the  case  would  stand  pre- 
cisely as  it  does  now.  We  value  our  senses  simply  because  wo 
have  them,  and  because  our  conception  of  life  as  we  desire  it 
is  drawn  from  them.  But  to  reason  from  such  value  to  tho 
origin  of  our  endowment,  to  argue  that  our  senses  must  have 


368  DARWINIANA. 

been  given  to  iis  by  a  deity  because  we  prize  them,  is  evidently 
to  move  round  and  round  in  a  vicious  circle. 

"The  same  rejoinder  is  easily  applicable  to  the  argument 
from  beauty,  which  indeed  is  only  a  particular  aspect  of  the 
argument  from  utility.  It  is  certainly  improbable  that  a  ran- 
dom daubing  of  colors  on  a  canvas  will  produce  a  tolerable 
painting,  even  should  the  experiment  be  continued  for  thou- 
sands of  years.  Our  conception  of  beauty  being  given,  it  is 
utterly  improbable  that  chance  should  select,  out  of  the  infinity 
of  combinations  which  form  and  color  may  aiford,  the  precise 
combination  which  that  conception  will  approve.  But  the 
universe  is  not  posterior  to  our  sense  of  beauty,  but  antecedent 
to  it :  our  sense  of  beauty  grows  out  of  what  we  see ;  and 
hence  the  conformance  of  our  world  to  our  a^sthetical  concep- 
tions is  evidence,  not  of  the  world's  origin,  but  of  our  own." 

We  are  accustomed  to  hear  design  doubted  on  ac- 
count of  certain  failures  of  provision,  waste  of  re- 
sources, or  functionless  condition  of  organs ;  but  it  is 
refreshingly  new  to  have  the  very  harmony  itself  of 
man  with  his  surroundings,,  and  the  completeness  of 
provision  for  his  wants  and  desires,  brought  up  as  a 
refutation  of  the  validity  of  the  argument  for  design. 
It  is  hard,  indeed,  if  man  must  be  out  of  harmony 
with  ISTature  i:i  order  to  judge  anything  respecting  it, 
or  his  relations  with  it ;  if  he  must  have  experience 
of  chaos  before  he  can  predicate  anything  ©f  order. 

But  is  it  true  that  man  has  all  that  he  conceives 
of,  or  thinks  would  be  useful,  and  has  no  "  negative 
evidence  of  design  afforded  by  the  absence  of  a  facul- 
ty" to  set  against  the  positive  evidence  afforded  by 
its  presence  ?  He  notes  that  he  lacks  the  faculty  of 
flight,  sometimes  wants  it,  and  in  dreams  imagines 
that  he  has  it,  yet  as  thoroughly  believes  that  he  was 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  309 

designed  not  to  have  it  as  that  lie  was  designed  to 
have  the  faculties  and  organs  which  he  possesses.  lie 
notes  that  some  animals  lack  sight,  and  so,  with  this 
negative  side  of  the  testimony  to  the  value  of  vision, 
he  is  "  apt  to  infer  creative  wisdom  "  both  in  what  he 
enjoys  and  in  what  the  lower  animal  neither  needs 
nor  wants.  That  man  does  not  miss  that  which  he 
has  no  conception  of,  and  is  by  this  limitation  dis- 
qualified from  judging  rightly  of  what  he  can  con- 
ceive and  know,  is  what  the  Westminster  Remewer 
comes  to,  as  follows : 

"  We  value  the  constitution  of  our  world  because  we  live  by 
it,  and  because  we  cannot  conceive  oursplves  as  living  other- 
wise. Our  conceptions  of  possibility,  of  law,  of  regularity,  of 
logic,  are  all  derived  from  the  same  source ;  and  as  we  are  con- 
stantly compelled  to  work  with  tliese  conceptions,  as  in  our  in- 
creasing endeavors  to  better  our  condition  and  increase  our 
provision  we  are  constantly  compelled  to  guide  ourselves  by 
Nature's  regulations,  we  accustom  ourselves  to  look  upon  these 
regularities  and  conceptions  as  antecedent  to  all  work,  even  to 
a  Creator's,  and  to  judge  of  the  origin  of  Nature  as  we  judge 
of  the  origin  of  inventions  and  utilities  ascribable  to  man.  Tliis 
explains  why  the  argument  of  design  has  enjoyed  such  univer- 
sal popularity.  But  that  such  popularity  is  no  criterion  of  the 
argument's  worth,  and  that,  indeed,  it  is  no  evidence  of  any- 
thing save  of  an  unhappy  weakness  in  man's  mental  constitu- 
tion, is  abundantly  proved  by  the  explanation  itself." 

"Well,  the  constitution  and  condition  of  man  being 
such  that  he  always  does  infer  design  in  Nature,  wliat 
stronger  presumption  could  there  possibly  be  of  tlie 
relevancy  of  the  inference?  We  do  not  say  of  its 
correctness :  that  is  another  thing,  and  is  not  the  pres- 
ent point.     At  the  last,  as  has  well  been  saiJ,  the 


370  DARWmiANA. 

whole  question  resolves  itself  into  one  respecting  the 
ultimate  veracity  of  E'atm^e,  or  of  the  •  author  of  ]^a- 
ture,  if  there  be  anj. 

Passing  from  these  attempts  to  undermine  the 
foundation  of  the  doctrine — which  we  judge  to  be 
unsuccessful — we  turn  to  the  consideration  of  those 
aimed  at  the  superstructure.  Evidences  of  design 
may  be  relevant,  but  not  cogent.  They  may,  as  Mill 
thought,  preponderate,  or  the  wavering  balance  may 
incline  the  other  way.  There  are  two  lines  of  argu- 
ment :  one  against  the  sufficiency,  the  other  against 
the  necessity,  of  the  principle  of  design.  Design  has 
been  denied  on  the  ground  that  it  squares  with  only 
one  part  of  the  facts,  and  fails  to  explain  others ;  it 
may  be  superseded  by  showing  that  all  the  facts  are 
in  the  way  of  being  explained  without  it. 

The  things  which  the  principle  of  design  does  not 
explain  are  many  and  serious.  Some"  are  in  their  na- 
ture inexplicable,  at  least  are  beyond  the  power  and 
province  of  science.  Others  are  of  matters  which 
scientific  students  have  to  consider,  and  upon  which 
they  may  form  opinions,  more  or  less  well-grounded. 
As  to  biological  science — with  which  alone  we  are 
concerned — it  is  getting  to  be  generally  thought  that 
this  principle,  as  commonly  understood,  is  weighted 
with  much  more  than  it  can  carry. 

This  statement  will  not  be  thought  exaggerated 
by  those  most  familiar  with  the  facts  and  the  ideas  of 
the  age,  and  accustomed  to  look  them  in  the  face. 
Design  is  held  to,  no  doubt,  by  most,  and  by  a  sm*e 
instinct ;  not,  however,  as  always  offering  an  exjDlana- 
tion  of  the  facts,  but  in  spite  of  the  failure  to  do  so. 


EVOLUTIONARY .  TELEOLOGY.  371 

The  stumbling-blocks  are  various,  and  tliey  lie  in 
every  path:  we  can  allude  only  to  one  or  two  as 
specimens. 

Adaptation  and  utility  are  the  marks  of  design. 
"What,  then,  are  organs  not  adapted  to  use  marks  of  ? 
Functionless  organs  of  some  sort  are  the  heritage  of 
almost  every  species.  AYe  have  ways  of  seeming  to  ac- 
count for  them — and  of  late  one  which  may  really  ac- 
count for  them — but  they  are  unaccountable  on  the 
principle  of  design.  Some,  shutting  their  eyes  to  the 
difficulty,  deny  that  we  know  them  to  be  functionless, 
and  prefer  to  believe  they  must  have  a  use  because 
they  exist,  and  are  more  or  less  connected  with  or- 
gans which  are  correlated  to  obvious  use ;  but  only 
blindfolded  persons  care  to  tread  the  round  of  so  nar- 
row a  circle.  Of  late  some  such  abortive  organs  in 
flowers  and  fruits  are  found  to  have  a  use,  though  not 
the  use  of  their  kind.  But  unwavering  believers  in  de- 
sign should  not  trust  too  much  to  instances  of  this 
sort.  There  is  an  old  adage  that,  if  anything  be  kept 
long  enough,  a  use  will  be  found  for  it.  If  the  follow- 
ing up  of  this  line,  when  it  comes  in  our  way,  should 
bring  us  round  again  to  a  teleological  principle,  it 
will  not  be  one  which  conforms  to  the  prevalent  ideas 
now  attacked. 

It  is  commonly  said  that  abortive  and  useless  or- 
gans exist  for  the  sake  of  symmetry,  or  as  parts  of  a 
plan.  To  say  this,  and  stop  there,  is  a  fine  instance 
of  mere  seeming  to  say  something.  For,  under  the 
principle  of  design,  what  is  the  sense  of  introducing 
useless  parts  into  a  useful  organism,  and  what  shadow 
of  explanation  does  "  sjnnmetry  "  give  ?     To  go  fur- 


372  DARWINIANA. 

ther  and  explain  the  cause  of  the  sjmmetiy  and  how 
abortive  organs  came  to  be,  is  more  to  the  purpose, 
but  it  introduces  quite  another  principle  than  that  of 
design.  The  difficulty  recurs  in  a  somewhat  different 
form  when  an  organ  is  useful  and  of  exquisite  per- 
fection in  some  species,  but  functionless  in  another. 
An  organ,  such  as  an  eye,  strikes  us  by  its  exquisite 
and,  as  we  say,  perfect  adaptation  and  utility  in  some 
animal;  it  is  found  repeated,  still  useful  but  destitute 
of  many  of  its  adaptations,  in  some  animal  of  lower 
grade ;  in  some  one  lower  still  it  is  rudimentary  and 
useless.  It  is  asked,  If  the  first  was  so  created  for  its 
obvious  and  actual  use,  and  the  second  for  such  use  as 
it  has,  what  was  the  design  of  the  third  ?  One  more 
case,  in  which  use  after  all  is  well  subserved,  we  cite 
from  the  article  already  much  quoted  fi'om  : 

"  It  is  well  known  that  certain  fishes  {Pleuronecta)  display 
the  singularity  of  having  both  eyes  on  the  same  side  of  their 
head,  one  eye  being  placed  a  little  higher  than  the  other.  This 
arrangement  has  its  utility  ;  for  the  Pleuronecta,  swimming  on 
their  side  quite  near  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  have  little  occasion 
-for  their  eyesight  except  to  observe  what  is  going  on  above 
them.  But  the  detail  to  which  we  would  call  notice  is,  that 
the  original  position  of  the  eyes  is  symmetrical  in  these  fishes, 
and  that  it  is  only  at  a  certain  point  of  their  development  that 
the  anomaly  is  manifested,  one  of  the  eyes  passing  to  the  other 
side  of  the  head.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  that  an  intelligent 
being  should  have  selected  such  an  arrangement ;  and  that,  in- 
tending the  eyes  to  be  used  only  on  one  side  of  the  head,  he 
should  have  placed  them  originally  on  different  sides." 

Then  the  waste  of  being  is  enormous,  far  beyond 
the  common  apprehension.  Seeds,  eggs,  and  other 
germs,  are  designed  to  be  plants  and  animals,  but  not 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  373 

one  of  a  tliousand  or  of  a  million  acliieves  its  destiny. 
Those  that  Ml  into  fitting  places  and  in  fitting  num- 
bers find  beneficent  provision,  and,  if  they  were  to 
wake  to  consciousness,  might  argue  design  from  the 
adaptation  of  their  surroundings  to  their  well-being. 
But  what  of  the  vast  majority  that  perish  ?  As  of 
the  light  of  the  sun,  sent  forth  in  all  directions,  only 
a  minute  portion  is  intercepted  by  the  earth  or  other 
planets  where  some  of"  it  may  be  utilized  for  present 
or  future  life,  so  of  potential  organisms,  or  organisms 
begun,  no  larger  proportion  attain  the  presumed  end 
of  their  creation. 

"  Destruction,  therefore,  is  the  rule ;  life  is  the  exception. 
We  notice  chiefly  the  exception — namely,  the  lucky  prize-win- 
ner in  the  lottery — and  take  but  little  thought  about  the  losers, 
who  vanish  from  our  field  of  observation,  and  whose  number 
it  is  often  impossible  to  estimate.  But,  in  this  question  of  de- 
sign, the  losers  are  important  witnesses.  If  the  maxim  '■audi 
alteram  i)artem '  is  applicable  anywhere,  it  is  applicable  here. 
We  must  hear  both  sides,  and  the  testimony  of  the  seed  fallen 
on  good  ground  must  be  corrected  by  the  testimony  of  that 
which  falls  by  the  wayside,  or  on  the  rocks.  When  we  find,  as 
we  have  seen  above,  that  the  sowing  is  a  scattering  at  random, 
and  that,  for  one  being  provided  for  and  living,  ten  thousand 
perish  unprovided  for,  we  must  allow  that  the  existing  order 
would  be  accounted  as  the  worst  disorder  in  any  human  sphere 
of  action." 

It  is  urged,  moreover,  that  all  this  and  nnicli  more 
applies  equally  to  the  past  stages  of  our  earth  and  its 
immensely  long  and  varied  succession  of  former  in- 
habitants, different  from,  yet  intimately  connected 
with,  the  present.  It  is  not  one  specific  creation  tliat 
the  question  has  to  deal  with — as  was  thought  not  very 


374  •  DAEWn^'IAI^A. 

many  years  ago — but  a  series  of  creations  through 
countless  ages,  and  of  wliicli  the  beginning  is  un- 
known. 

These  references  touch  a  few  out  of  many  points, 
and  merely  allude  to  some  of  the  difficulties  which 
the  unheeding  pass  by,  but  which,  when  brought  be- 
fore the  mind,  are  seen  to  be  stupendous. 

Somewhat  may  be  justly,  or  at  least  plausibly, 
said  in  reply  to  all  this  from  the  ordinary  standpoint, 
but  probably  not  to  much  effect.  There  were  always 
insuperable  difficulties,  which,  when  they  seemed  to 
be  few,  might  be  regarded  as  exceptional ;  but,  as 
they  increase  in  number  and  variety,  they  seem  to  fall 
into  a  system.  JSTo  doubt  we  may  still  insist  that,  "  in 
the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  the  adaptations 
in  JS^ature  afford  a  large  balance  of  probability  in 
favor  of  creation  by  intelligence,"  as  Mill  concluded  ; 
and  probability  must  needs  be  the  guide  of  reason 
through  these  dark  places.  Still,  the  balancing  of 
ii-reconcilable  facts  is  not  a  satisfying  occupation,  nor 
a  wholly  hopeful  one,  while  fresh  weights  are  from 
time  to  time  dropping  into  the  lighter  side  of  the  bal- 
ance. Sti'ong  as  our  convictions  are,  they  may  be 
overborne  by  evidence.  TVe  cannot  rival  the  fabled 
woman  of  Ephesus,  who,  beginning  by  carrying  her 
calf  from  the  day  of  its  birth,  was  still  able  to  do  so 
when  it  became  an  ox.  The  burden  which  our  fa- 
thers carried  comfortably,  with  some  adventitious 
help,  has  become  too  heavy  for  our  shoulders. 

Seriously,  there  must  be*  something  wrong  in  the 
position,  some  baleful  error  mixed  with  the  truth,  to 
which  this  contradiction  of  our  inmost  convictions 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  ;>75 

may  be  attributed.  The  error,  as  we  suppose,  lies  in 
the  combination  of  the  principle  of  design  with  tlie 
hypothesis  of  the  immutability  and  isolated  creation  of 
species.  The  latter  hypothesis,  in  its  nature  unprov- 
able, has,  on  scientific  grounds,  become  so  far  im- 
probable that  few,  even  of  the  anti-Darwinian  natu- 
ralists, now  hold  to  it ;  and,  whatever  may  once  have 
been  its  religious  claims,  it  is  at  present  a  hinderance 
rather  than  a  help  to  any  just  and  consistent  teleology. 

By  the  adoption  of  the  Darwinian  hypothesis,  or 
something  like  it,  which  we  incline  to  favor,  many  of 
the  difficulties  are  obviated,  and  others  diminished. 
In  the  comprehensive  and  far-reaching  teleology 
which  may  take  the  place  of  the  former  narrow  con- 
ceptions, organs  and  even  faculties,  useless  to  the 
individual,  find  their  explanation  and  reason  of  l;)eing. 
Either  they  have  done  service  in  the  past,  or  they 
may  do  service  in  the  future.  They  may  have  been 
essentially  useful  in  one  way  in  a  past  species,  and, 
though  now  functionless,  they  may  be  turned  to  use- 
ful account  in  some  very  different  way  hereafter.  In 
botany  several  cases  come  to  our  mind  which  suggest 
such  interpretation. 

Under  this  view,  moreover,  waste  of  life  and  ma- 
terial in  organic  Nature  ceases  to  be  utterly  inexpli- 
cable, because  it  ceases  to  be  objectless.  It  is  seen 
to  be  a  part  of  the  general  "  economy  of  ISTature,"  a 
phrase  which  has  a  real  meaning.  One  good  illustra- 
tion of  it  is  furnished  by  the  pollen  of  ilowers.  The 
seeming  waste  of  this  in  a  pine-forest  is  enormous. 
It  gives  rise  to  the  so-called  "  showers  of  sul])]uir,'' 
which  every  one  has  heard  of.     Myriads  upon  myri- 


376  DARWINIANA. 

ads  of  pollen-grains  (eacli  an  elaborate  organic  struct- 
ure) are  wastef  ully  dispersed  by  the  winds  to  one  which 
reaches  a  female  flower  and  fertilizes  a  seed.  Con- 
trast this  with  one  of  the  close-fertilized  flowers  of  a 
violet,  in  which  there  are  not  many  times  more  grains 
of  pollen  produced  than  there  are  of  seeds  to  be  fer- 
tilized ;  or  with  an  orchis-flower,  in  which  the  propor- 
tion is  not  widely  different.  These  latter  are  certain- 
ly the  more  economical ;  but  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  former  arrangement  is  not  wasteful. 
The  plan  in  the  violet-flower  assures  the  result  with 
the  greatest  possible  saving  of  material  and  action ; 
but  this  result,  being  close-fertilization  or  breeding  in 
and  in,  would,  without  much  doubt,  in  the  course  of 
time,  defeat  the  very  object  of  having  seeds  at  all.' 
So  the  same  plant  produces  other  flowers  also,  pro- 
vided with  a  large  surplus  of  j)olleD,  and  endowed  (as 
the  others  are  not)  with  color,  fragrance,  and  nectar, 
attractive  to  certain  insects,  which  are  thereby  induced 
to  convey  this  pollen  from  blossom  to  blossom,  that 
it  may  fulfill  its  ofiice.  In  such  blossoms,  and  in  the 
great  majority  of  flowers,  the  fertilization  and  conse- 
quent perpetuity  of  which  are  committed  to  insects, 
the  likehhood  that  much  pollen  may  be  left  behind  or 
lost  in  the  transit  is  sufficient  reason  for  the  apparent 
superfluity.  So,  too,  the  greater  economy  in  orchis- 
flowers  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  pollen  is 
packed  in  coherent  masses,  'all  attached  to  a  common 
stalk,  the  end  of  which  is  expanded  into  a  sort  of 
button,  with  a  glutinous  adhesive  face  (hke  a  bit  of 
sticking-plaster),  and  this  is  placed  exactly  where  the 

*  See  page  340. 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  377 

Head  ot  a  motli  or  butterfly  will  be  pressed  against  it 
when  it  sucks  nectar  from  the  flower,  and  so  the  ])ol- 
len  will  be  bodily  conveyed  from  blossom  to  blossom, 
with  small  chance  of  waste  or  loss.  The  floral  woi-ld 
is  full  of  such  contrivances ;  and  while  they  exist  the 
doctrine  of  purpose  or  final  cause  is  not  likely  to  die 
out.  JSTow,  in  the  contrasted  case,  that  of  pine-trees, 
the  vast  superabundance  of  pollen  would  be  sheer 
waste  if  the  intention  was  to  fertilize  the  seeds  of  the 
same  tree,  or  if  there  were  any  provision  for  insect- 
carriage  ;  but  with  wide-breeding  as  the  end,  and  the 
wind  which  "  bloweth  where  it  listeth  "  as  the  means, 
no  one  is  entitled  to  declare  that  pine-pollen  is  in 
wasteful  excess.  The  cheapness  of  wind-carriage  may 
be  set  against  the  over-production  of  pollen. 

Similar  considerations  may  apply  to  the  mould- 
fungi  and  other  very  low  organisms,  with  spores  dis- 
persed through  the  air-  in  countless  myriads,  but  of 
which  only  an  infinitesimal  portion  find  opportunity 
for  development.  The  myriads  perish.  The  excep- 
tional one,  falling  into  a  fit  medium,  is  imagined  by 
the  Westviinster  Remewer  to  argue  design  from  the 
beneficial  -provision  it  finds  itself  enjoying,  in  happy 
ignorance  of  the  perishing  or  latent  multitude.  But, 
in  view  of  the  large  and  important  part  they  play  (as 
the  producers  of  all  fermentation  and  as  the  onmi- 
present  scavenger-police  of  ISTature),  no  good  ground 
appears  for  arguing  either  wasteful  excess  or  absence 
of  design  from  the  vast  disparity  between  their  po- 
tential and  their  actual  numbers.  The  reserve  and 
the  active  members  of  the  force  should  both  be  count- 
ed in,  ready  as  they  always  and  everywhere  are  for 


378  DARWimANA. 

service.  Considering  their  ubiquity,  persistent  vital- 
ity, and  promptitude  of  action  upon  fitting  occasion, 
the  suggestion  would  rather  be  that,  while 

" .  .  .  .  thousands  at  His  bidding  speed, 
And  post  o'er  land  and  ocean  without  rest, 
They  also  serve  [which]  only  stand  and  wait." 

Finally,  Darwinian  teleology  has  the  special  ad- 
vantage of  accounting  for  the  imperfections  and  fail- 
ures as  well  as  for  successes.  It  not  only  accounts 
for  them,  but  turns  them  to  practical  account.  It  ex- 
plains the  seeming  waste  as  being  part  and  parcel  of 
a  great  economical  process.  Without  the  competing 
multitude,  no  struggle  for  life  ;  and  without  this,  no 
natural  selection  and  survival  of  the  fittest,  no  con- 
tinuous adaptation  to  changing  surroundings,  no  di- 
versification and  improvement,  leading  from  lower  up 
to  higher  and  nobler  forms.  So  the  most  puzzling 
things  of  all  to  the  old-school  teleologists  are  the  prin- 
cipia  of  the  Darwinian.  In  this  system  the  forms 
and  species,  in  all  their  variety,  are  not  mere  ends  in 
themselves,  but  the  whole  a  series  of  means  and  ends, 
in  the  contemplation  of  which  we  may  obtain  higher 
and  more  comprehensive,  and  j^erhaps  worthier,  as 
well  as  more  consistent,  views  of  design  in  E'ature 
than  heretofore.  At  least,  it  would  appear  that  in 
Darwinian  evolution  we  may  have  a  theory  that  ac- 
cords with  if  it  does  not  explain  the  principal  facts, 
and  a  teleology  that  is  free  from  the  common  objec- 
tions. 

But  is  it  a  teleology,  or  rather — to  use  the  new- 
fangled term — a  dysteleology  ?     That  depends  upon 


•    •  EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  379 

how  it  is  held.  Darwinian  evohition  (whatever  may 
be  said  of  other  kinds)  is  neither  theistieal  nor  non- 
theisticaL  Its  relations  to  the  question  of  design  be- 
long to  the  natural  theologian,  or,  in  the  larger  sense, 
to  the  philosopher.  So  long  as  the  world  lasts  it  will 
probably  be  open  to  any  one  to  hold  consistently,  in 
the  last  resort,  either  of  the  two  hj^otheses,  that  of  a 
divine  mind,  or  that  of  no  divine  mind.  There  is  no 
way  that  we  know  of  by  which  the  alternative  may 
be  excluded.  Yiewed  philosophically,  the  question 
only  is.  Which  is-  the  better  supported  hypothesis  of 
the  two  ? 

We  have  only  to  say  that  the  Darwinian  system, 
as  we  understand  it,  coincides  well  with  the  theistic 
view  of  ISTature.  It  not  only  acknowledges  purpose 
(in  the  Contem])orarij  Reviewer'^ s  sense),'  but  builds 
upon  it ;  and  if  purpose  in  this  sense  does  not  of 
itself  imply  design,  it  is  certainly  compatible  with  it, 
and  suggestive  of  it.  Difficult  as  it  may  be  to  con- 
ceive and  impossible  to  demonstrate  design  in  a 
whole  of  which  the  series  of  parts  appear  to  be  con- 
tingent, the  alternative  may  be  yet  more  difficult  and 
less  satisfactory.  If  all  Mature  is  of  a  piece — as  mod- 
ern physical  philosophy  insists — then  it  seems  clear 
that  design  must  in  some  way,  and  in  some  sense, 
pervade  the  system,  or  be  wholly  absent  from  it.  Of 
the  alternatives,  the  predication  of  design — special, 
general,  or  universal,  as  the  case  may  be — is  most 
natural  to  the  mind ;  while  the  exclusion  of  it  through- 
out, because  some  utilities  may  happen,  many  adapta- 
tions may  be  contingent  results,  and  no  organic  mal- 

'  See  pp.  358,  359. 


380  DARWINIANA. 

adaptations  could  continue,  runs  counter  to  sucli  anal- 
ogies as  we  have  to  guide  ns,  and  leads  to  a  conclu- 
sion wMcli  few  men  ever  rested  in.  It  need  not  much 
trouble  ns  that  we  are  incapable  of  drawing  clear 
lines  of  demarkation  between  mere  ntilities,  contin- 
gent adaptations,  and  designed  contrivances  in  ISTa- 
ture ;  for  we  are  in  much  the  same  condition  as  re- 
spects human  affairs  and  those  of  lower  animals. 
What  results  are  comprehended  in  a  plan,  and  what 
are  incidental,  is  often  more  than  we  can  readily  de- 
termine in  matters  open  to  observation.  And  in  plans 
executed  mediately  or  indirectly,  and  for  ends  com- 
prehensive and  far-reaching,  many  purposed  steps 
must  appear  to  us  incidental  or  meaningless.  But  the 
higher  the  intelligence,  the  more  fully  will  the  inci- 
dents enter  into  the  plan,  and  the  more  universal 
and  interconnected  may  the  ends  be.  Trite  as  the 
remark  is,  it  would  seem  still  needful  to  insist  that 
the  failure  of  a  finite  being  to  compass  the  designs  of 
an  infinite  mind  should  not  invalidate  its  conclusions 
respecting  proximate  ends  which  he  can  understand. 
It  is  just  as  in  physical  science,  where,  as  our  knowl- 
edge and  grasp  increase,  and  happy  discoveries  are 
m!ide,  wider  generalizations  are  formed,  which  com- 
monly comprehend,  rather  than  destroy,  the  earlier 
and  partial  ones.  So,  too,  the  "  sterility "  of  the 
old  doctrine  of  final  causes  in  science,  and  the  pre- 
sumptuous uses  made  of  them,  when  it  was  sup- 
posed that  every  adapted  arrangement  or.  structure 
existed  for  this  or  that  direct  and  special  end,  and 
for  no  other,  can  hardly  be  pressed  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  are  no  final  causes,  i.  e.,  ultimate  reasons 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  381 

of  things/  Design  in  Katnre  is  distinguished  from 
that  in  human  affairs — as  it  fittingly  should  he — ])y 
all  comprehensiveness  and  system.  Its  theological 
synonym  is  Providence.  Its  application  in  particular 
is  surrounded  by  similar  insoluble  difiiculties ;  never- 
theless, both  are  bound  up  with  theism. 

Probably  few  at  the  present  day  will  maintain 
that  Darwinian  evolution  is  incompatible  with  the 
principle  of  design ;  but  some  insist  that  the  theory 
can  dispense  with,  and  in  fact  supersedes,  this  prin- 
ciple. 

The  Westminster  Remewer  cleverly  expounds  how 
it  does  so.  The  exposition  is  too  long  to  quote,  and 
an  abstract  is  unnecessary,  for  the  argument  adverse 
to  design  is,  as  usual,  a  mere  summation  or  illustration 
of  the.  facts  and  assumptions  of  the  hypothesis  itself, 
by  us  freely  admitted.  Simplest  forms  began  ;  varia- 
tions occurred  among  them ;  under  the  competition 
consequent  upon  the  arithmetical  or  geometrical  pro- 
gression in  numbers,  only  the  fittest  for  the  condi- 
tions survive  and  propagate,  vary  further,  and  are 
similarly  selected  ;  and  so  on. 

"  Progress  having  once  begun  by  the  establishment  of  spe- 
cies, the  laws  of  atavism  and  variability  will  suffice  to  tell  the 
remainder  of  the  story.  The  colonies  gifted  with  the  faculty 
of  forming  others  in  their  likeness  will  soon  by  their  increase 
become  sole  masters  of  the  field;  but  the  common  enemy  be- 
ing thus  destroyed,  the  struggle  for  life  will  bo  renewed  among 

1  '<  No  single  and  limited  good  can  be  assigned  by  us  as  the  final 
cause  of  any  contrivance  in  Nature.  The  real  final  cause  ....  is 
the  sum  of  all  the  uses  to  which  it  is  ever  to  be  put.  Any  use  to 
which  a  contrivance  of  Nature  is  put,  we  may  be  sure,  is  a  part  of  its 
final  cause."— (G.  F.  Wright,  in  The  Neio-Englandcr,  October,  1871.) 

17 


882  DARWINIANA. 

the  conquerors.  The  saying  that  '  a  house  divided  against 
itself  cannot  stand,'  receives  in  Nature  its  flattest  contradic- 
tion. Civil  war  is  here  the  very  instrument  of  progress ;  it 
brings  about  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  Original  diiferences  in 
the  cell-colonies,  however  slight,  will  bring  about  diflerences 
of  life  and  action ;  the  latter,  continued  through  successive 
generations,  will  widen  the  original  differences  of  structure; 
innumerable  species  will. thus  spring  up,  branching  forth  in 
every  direction  from  the  original  stock;  and  the  competition 
of  these  species  among  each  other  for  the  ground  they  occupy, 
or  the  food  they  seek,  will  bring  out  and  develop  the  powers 
of  the  rivals.  One  chief  cause  of  superiority  will  lie  in  the 
division  of  labor  instituted  by  each  colony ;  or,  in  other  words, 
in  the  localization  of  the  colony's  functions.  In  the  primitive 
associations  (as  in  the  lowest  organisms  existing  now),  each  cell 
performed  much  the  same  work  as  its  neighbor,  and  the  func- 
tions necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  whole  (alimentation, 
digestion,  respiration,  etc.)  were  exercised  by  every  colonist  in 
his  own  behalf.  Social  life,  however,  acting  upon  the  cells  as 
it  acts  upon  the  members  of  a  human  family,  soon  created  dif- 
ferences among  them — differences  ever  deepened  by  continu- 
ance, and  which,  by  narrowing  the  limits  of  each  colonist's  ac- 
tivity, and  increasing  his  dependence  on  the  rest,  rendered  him 
fitter  for  his  special  task.  Each  function  was  thus  gradually 
monopolized  ;  but  it  came  to  be  the  appanage  of  a  single  group 
of  cells,  or  organ ;  and  so  excellent  did  this  ■  arrangement 
prove,  so  greatly  were  the  powers  of  each  commonwealth  en- 
hanced by  the  division  of  its  labor,  that  the  more  organs  a 
colony  possessed,  the  more  likely  it  was  to  succeed  in  its  strug- 
gle for  life.  .  .  .  We  shall  go  no  further,  for  the  reader  will 
easily  fill  out  the  remainder  of  the  picture  for  himself.  Man  is 
but  an  immense  colony  of  cells,  in  which  the  division  of  labor, 
together  with  the  centralization  of  the  nervous  system,  has 
reached  its  highest  limit.  It  is  chiefly  to  this  that  his  superi- 
ority is  due  ;  a  superiority  so  great,  as  regards  certain  functions 
of  the  brain,  that  he  may  be  excused  for  having  denied  his 
humbler  relatives,  and  dreamed  that,  standing  alone  in  the  cen- 
tre of  the  universe,  sun,  moon,  and  stara,  were  made  for  him." 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  3S3 

Let  us  learn  from  tlie  same  writer  how  both  eved 

ft. 

of  the  flomider  get,  quite  unintentionally,  on  the  Bume 
side  of  the  head.  The  writer  makes  much  of  this  case 
{see  p.  3Y2),  and  we  are  not  disposed  to  pass  it  by  : 

"A  similar  application  may  be  made  to  the  PleuTonect'i. 
Presmnablj,  these  fishes  had  adopted  their  peculiar  mode  of 
swimming  long  before  the  position  of  their  eyes  became  adapted 
to  it.  A  spontaneous  variation  occurred,  consisting  in  the  pas- 
sage of  one  eye  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  head  ;  and  this  varia- 
tion afforded  its  possessors  such  increased  facilities  of  sight  tbat 
in  the  course  of  time  the  exception  became  the  rule.  But  the 
remarkable  point  is,  that  the  law  of  heredity  not  only  preserved 
the  variation  itself,  but  the  date  of  its  occurrence;  and  tliat, 
altliough  for  thousands  of  years  the  adult  Pleuronecta  have  had 
both  eyes  on  the  same  side,  the  young  still  continue  during  their 
earlier  development  to  exhibit  the  contrary  arrangement,  just 
as  if  the  variation  still  occurred  spontaneously." 

Here  a  wonderful  and  one  would  say  miaccountaljle 
transference  takes  place  in  a  short  time.  As  Steen- 
strup  showed,  one  eye  actually  passes  through  the 
head  while  the  young  fish  is  growing.  AVe  ask  how 
this  comes  about ;  and  we  are  told,  truly  enough,  that 
it  takes  place  in  each  generation  because  it  did  so  in 
the  parents  and  in  the  whole  line  of  ancestors,  Why 
offspring  should  be  like  parent  is  more  than  any  one 
can  explain ;  but  so  it  is,  in  a  manner  so  nearly  fixed 
and  settled  that  we  can  count  on  it ;  yet  not  from  any 
absolute  necessity  that  we  know  of,  and,  indeed,  with 
sufficiently  striking  difference  now  and  then  to  demon- 
strate that  it  might  have  been  otherwise,  or  is  so  in  a 
notable  degree.  This  transference  of  one  eye  througli 
the  head,  from  the  side  where  it  would  be  nearly  use- 
less to  that  in  which  it  may  help  the  other,  bears  all 


384  *  DARWINIANA. 

tlie  marks  of  purpose,  and  so  carries  tlie  implication 
of  design.     The  case  is  adduced  as  part  of  the  evi- 
dence that  Darwinian   evolution   supersedes   design. 
But  how  ?   ]^ot  certainly  in  the  way  this  goes  on  from 
generation  to  generation ;  therefore,  doubtless  in  the 
way  it  began.     So  we  look  for  the  explanation  of  how 
it  came  about  at  the  first  unintentionally  or.  acciden- 
tally ;  how,  under  known  or  supposed  conditions,  it 
must  have  happened,  or  at  least  was  likely  to  hap- 
pen.    And  we  read,  "A  spontaneous  variation  oc- 
curred, consisting  in  the  passage  of  one  eye  to  the 
opposite   side   of  the  head."      That  is  all;   and  we 
suppose  there  is  nothing  more  to  be  said.     In  short, 
this  surprising  thing  was  undesigned  because  it  took 
place,  and  has  taken  place  ever  since  !     The  writer 
presumes,  moreover  (but  this  is  an  obiter  dictwn)^  that 
the  peculiarity  originated  long  after  flounders  had 
fixed  the  habit  of  swimming  on  one  side  (and  in  this 
particular  case  it  is  rather  difficult  to  see  how  the  two 
may  have  gone  on  ^:>(2?'^  passu),  and  so  he  cuts  away 
all  obvious  occasion  for  the  alteration  through  the 
summation  of  slight  variations  in  one  direction,  each 
bringing  some  advantage. 

This  is  a  strongly-marked  case;  but  its  features, 
although  unusually  prominent,  are  like  those  of  the 
general  run  of  the  considerations  by  which  evolution 
is  supposed  to  exclude  design.  Those  of  the  penul- 
timate citation  and  its  context  are  all  of  the  same 
stamj).  The  differences  which  begin  as  variations  are 
said  to  be  spontaneous — a  metaphorical  word  of  wide 
meanings — are  inferred  to  be  casual  (whereas  we  only 
know  them  to  be  occult),  or  to  be  originated  by  sur- 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  385 

rounding  agencies  (wliicli  is  not  in  a  just  sense  true) ; 
they  are  legitimately  inferred  to  be  led  on  Ly  natural 
selection,  wholly  new  structures  or  organs  appear,  no 
one  can  say  how,  certainly  no  one  can  show  that  they 
are  necessary  outcomes  of  what  preceded  ;  and  these 
two  are  through  natural  selection  kept  in  harmony 
with  tlie  surroundings,  adapted  to  different  ones, 
diversified,  and  perfected ;  pui-poses  are  all  along  sub- 
served through  exquisite  adaptations ;  and  yet  the 
whole  is  thought  to  be  undesigned,  not  because  of 
any  assigned  reason  why  this  or  that  must  have  been 
thus  or  so,  but  simply  because  they  all  occurred  in 
IS^ature  !  The  Darwinian  theory  implies  that  the 
birth  and  development  of  a  species  are  as  natural  as 
those  of  an  individual,  are  facts  of  the  same  kind  in  a 
higher  order.  The  alleged  proof  of  the  absence  of 
design  from  it  amounts  to  a  simple  reiteration  of  the 
statement,  with  particulars.  Xow,  the  marks  of  con- 
trivance in  the  structure  of  animals  used  not  to  be 
questioned  because  of  their  com.ing  in  the  way  of 
birth  and  development.  It  is  curious  that  a  further 
extension  of  this  birth  and  development  should  be 
held  to  disprove  them.  It  appears  to  us  that  all  this 
is  begging  the  question  against  design  in  Mature,  in- 
stead of  proving  that  it  may  be  dispensed  with. 

Two  things  have  helped  on  this  confusion.  One 
is  the  notion  of  the  direct  and  independent  creation 
of  species,  with  only  an  ideal  connection  between 
them,  to  question  which  was  thought  to  question  the 
principle  of  design.  The  other  is  a  wrong  idea  of 
the  natui'e  and  province  of  natural  selection.  In 
former  papers  we  have  over  and  over  explained  the 


X 


386  DAEWINIANA. 

Darwinian  doctrine  in  this  respect.  It  may  be  briefly 
illustrated  tlins:  Natural  selection  is  not  the  wind 
which  propels  the  vessel,  but  the  rudder  which,  by 
friction,  now  on  this  side  and  now  on  that,  shapes  the 
course.  The  rudder  acts  while  the  vessel  is  in  mo- 
tion, effects  nothing  when  it  is  at  rest.  Yariation 
answers  to  the  wind  :  "  Thou  hear  est  the  sound  there- 
of, but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it 
goeth.""  Its  course  is  controlled  by  natural  selection, 
the  action  of  which,  at  any  given  moment,  is  seem- 
ingly small  or  insensible  ;  but  the  ultimate  results  are 
great.  This  proceeds  mainly  through  outward  influ- 
ences. But  we  are  more  and  more  convinced  that 
variation,  and  therefore  the  ground  of  adaptation,  is 
not  a  product  of,  but  a  response  to,  the  action  of  the 
environment.  Yariations,  in  other  words,  the  differ- 
ences between  individual  plants  and  animals,  however 
originated,  are  evidently  not  from  without  but  from 
within — not  physical  but  physiological. 

We  cannot  here  assign  particularly  the  reasons 
for  this  opinion.  But  we  notice  that  the  way  in 
w^hich  varieties  make  their  appearance  strongly  sug- 
gests it^  The  variations  of  plants  which  spring  up  in 
a  seed-bed,  for  instance,  seem  to  be  in  no  assignable 
relation  to  the  external  conditions.  They  arise,  as  we 
say,  spontaneously,  and  either  with  decided  characters 
from  the  first,  or  with  obvious  tendencies  in  one  or 
few  directions.  The  occult  power,  whatever  it  be, 
does  not  seeni  in  any  given  case  to  act  vaguely,  pro- 
ducing all  sorts  of  variations  from  a  common  centre, 
to  be  reduced  by  the  struggle  for  life  to  fewness  and 
the  appearance  of  order ;  there  are,  rather,  orderly  in- 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  387 

di cations  from  tlie  first.  Tlie  variations  of  which  we 
speak,  as  originating  in  no  obvious  causal  rehition  to 
the  external  conditions,  do  not  include  dwarfed  ur 
starved,  and  gigantesque  or  luxuriant  forms,  and 
those  drawn  up  or  expanded  on  the  one  hand,  or  con- 
tracted and  hardened  on  the  other,  by  the  direct  dif- 
ference in  the  supply  of  food  and  moisture,  light  and 
heat..  Here  the  action  of  the  environment  is  both 
obvious  and  direct.  But  such  cases  do  not  count  for 
much  in  evolution. 

Moreover,  while  we  see  how  the  mere  struggle  and 
interplay  among  occurring  forms  may  improve  them 
and  lead  them  on,  we  cannot  well  imagine  how  the 
'adaptations  which  arrest  our  attention  are  thereby 
secured.  Our  difficulty,  let  it  be  understood,  is  not 
about  the  natural  origination  of  organs.  To  the  tri- 
umphant outcry,  "  How  can  an  organ,  such  as  an  eye, 
be  formed  under  J^ature  ? "  we  would  respond  witli  a 
parallel  question.  How  can  a  complex  and  elaborate 
organ,  such  as  a  nettle-sting,  be  formed  under  Na- 
ture ?  But  it  is  so  formed.  In  the  same  species 
some  individuals  have  these  exquisitely-constructed 
organs  and  some  have  not.  And  so  of  other  glands, 
the  structure  and  adaptation  of  which,  when  looked 
into,  appear  to  be  as  wonderful  as  anything  in  Na- 
ture. The  hnpossibility  lies  in  conceiving  how  the 
obvious  purpose  was  effectuated  under  natural  se- 
lection alone.  This,  under  our  view,  any  amount  of 
gradation  in  a  series  of  forms  goes  a  small  way  in 
explaining.  The  transit  of  a  young  flounder's  eye 
across  the  head  is  a  capital  instance  of  a  wonderful 
thing  done  under  Nature,  and  done  un^accountaljly. 


388  DARWINIANA. 

But  simpler  correlations  are  involved  in  similar 
difficulty.     The  superabundance  of  the  pollen  of  pine- 
trees  above  referred  to,  and  in  oak-trees,  is  correlated 
with  chance  fertilization  under  the  winds.     In  the 
analogous  instance  of  willows  a  diminished  amount  of 
pollen  is  correlated  with  direct  transportation  by  in- 
sects.    Even  in  so  simple  a  case  as  this  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  this  difference  in  the  conveyance  would 
reduce  the  quantity  of  pollen  produced.     It  is,  we 
know,  in  the  very  alphabet  of  Darwinism  that  if  a 
male  willow-tree  should  produce  a  smaller  amount  of 
pollen,  and  if  this  pollen  communicated  to  the  off- 
spring  of  the  female  flowers  it  fertilized  a  similar 
tendency  (as  it  might),  this  male  progeny  would  se- 
cure whatever  advantage  might  come  from  the  saving 
of  a  certain  amount  of  work  and  material ;  but  why 
should  it  begin  to  produce  less  poUen  ?     But  this  is  as 
nothing  compared  with  the  arrangements  in  orchid- 
flowers,  where  new  and  peculiar  structures  are  intro- 
duced— structures  which,  ojice  originated  and  then 
set  into  variation,  may  thereupon  be  selected,  and 
thereby  led  on  to  improvement  and  diversification. 
But  the  origination,  and  even  the  variation,  still  re- 
mains unexplained  either  by  the  action  of  insects  or 
by  any  of  the  processes  which  collectively  are  per- 
sonified by  the  term  natural  selection.     We  really 
believe  that  these  exquisite  adaptations  have  come  to 
pass  in  the  course  of  Nature,  and  under  natural  selec- 
tion, but  not  that  natural  selection  alone  explains  or 
in  a  just  scDse  originates  them.     Or  rather,  if  this 
term  is  to  stand  for  sufficient  cause  and  rational  ex- 
planation, it  must  denote  or  include  that  inscrutable 


EVOLUTIONARY  TELEOLOGY.  3S9 

something  which  produces— as  well  as  that  whicli  re- 
sults in  the  sur\dval  of — ''  the  fittest.'' 

We  have  been  considering  tins  chiss  of  questions 
only  as  a  naturalist  might  who  souglit  for  the  ])rnper 
or  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  pruldem  before 
him,  unmingled  with  considerations  from  any  other 
source.  Weightier  arguments  in  the  last  resort, 
drawn  from  the  intellectual  and  moral  constitution  of 
man,  lie  on  a  higher  plane,  to  which  it  was  unneces- 
sary for  our  particular  pui-pose  to  rise,  liowever  indis- 
pensable this  be  to  a  full  presentation  of  the  evidence 
of  mind  in  l^ature.  To  us  the  evidence,  judged  as 
impartially  as  we  are  capable  of  judging,  a])23ears  con- 
vincing. But,  whatever  view  one  unconvinced  may 
take,  it  cannot  remain  doubtful  what  position  a  the- 
ist  ought  to  occupy.  If  he  cannot  recognize  design 
in  Nature  because  of  evolution,  he  may  be  ranked 
with  those  of  wliom  it  was  said,  ''  Except  ye  see 
signs  and  wonders  ye  will  not  believe."  How  strange 
that  a  convinced  theist  sliould  be  so  prone  to  associate 
design  only  with  miracle  ! 

All  turns,  however,  upon  what  is  meant  by  this 
Nature,  to  which  it  appears  more  and  more  probable 
that  the  being  and  becoming — no  less  than  the  well- 
being  and  succession — of  species  and  genera,  as  well 
as  of  individuals,  are  committed.  To  us  it  means  "  the 
world  of  force  and  movement  in  time  and  space,"  as 
Aristotle  defined  it — the  system  and  totality  of  things 
in  the  visible  universe. 

What  is  generally  called  Nature  Prof.   T}Tidall 
names   matter — a    peculiar   nomenclature,   requirin 
new  definitions  (as  he  avers),  in\ating  misunderstand 


IT 


390  DARWINIANA, 

ing,  and  leaving  tlie  questions  we  are  concerned  with 
jiist  where  they  were.  For  it  is  still  to  ask  :  whence 
this  rich  endowment  of  matter  ?  Whence  comes  that 
of  which  all  we  see  and  know  is  the  outcome  ?  That 
to  which  potency  may  in  the  last  resort  he  ascribed, 
Prof.  Tyndall,  suspending  further  judgment,  calls 
mystery — using  the  word  in  one  of  its  senses,  namely, 
something  hidden  from  us  which  we  are  not  to  seek 
to  know.  But  there  are  also  mysteries  proper  to  be 
inquired  into  and  to  be  reasoned  about ;  and,  althougli 
it  may  not  be  given  unto  us  to  know  the  mystery  of 
causation,  there  can  hardly  be  a  more  legitimate  sub- 
ject of  philosophical  inquiry.  Most  scientific  men 
have  thought  themselves  intellectually  authorized  to 
have  an  opinion  about  it.  "  For,  by  the  primitive 
and  very  ancient  men,  it  has  been  handed  down  in 
the  form  of  myths,  and  thus  left  to  later  generations, 
that  the  Divine  it  is  which  holds  together  all  J^a- 
ture ; "  and  this  tradition^  of  which  Aristotle,  both 
naturalist  and  philosopher,  thus  nobly  speaks  ^ — con- 
tinued through  succeeding  ages,  and  illuminated  by 
the  Light  which  has  come,  into  the  world — may  still 
express  the  worthiest  thoughts  of  the  modern  scien- 
tific investigator  and  reasoner. 

^  ITapaSeSoTat  Se  imb  rwu  ap;^aiajv  /cat  iraixiraXalwv  eu  fxvQov  (Tx^/iaxi 
KaTa\eA.ei/ieVo  toIs  varepop,  'on  Treptexet  TO  ©EION  tV  o\r}v  (pvaiv. — 
Arist.  Metaphys.,  xi.  8,  19. 


IKDEX. 


Accident  incidental  to  design,  154-157. 
Agassiz,  L.,  view  of  species,  W,  16, 1C3, 
191,  200 ;  how  ho  diverges  from  Dar- 
win, 16,  117,120,199;  correspondence 
.  of  his  capital  facts  with  Darwin's,  19^ 
theory  theistic  to  excess,  14,  20-22, 
154,  200;  relation  of  tertiary  to  exist- 
ing species,  49, 110 ;  on  age  of  Florida, 
100;  on  prophetic  types,  116;  on  in- 
telligence of  animals,  172 ;  on  destruc- 
tion  of   species,  120;    on    geological 
time,  100,  162;  on  design  in  Nature, 
154-156. 
Alaska,  Sequoia  fossil  in,  22S. 
Aldrovanda,  insectivorous,  322.  _ 

Analogy,  use  of,  by  Darwin,  47, 105;  m 
.    proof  of  design,  365. 
Argyll,  Duke  of,  on  creation  by  law,  2T5. 
Aristotle,  his  definition  of  Nature,  3S9  ; 

his  theistic  view  of  Nature,  890. 
Atheism,  relations  of  Darwinism  to,  55, 
5«,  69, 138  sq..  154,  258,  266  5(7-,  269,  270, 
279,  379;  to  doubt  ordinary  doctrine 
of  final  causes  not  atheistical,  133. 
Au2;ustine,  St.,  on  the  method  of  crea- 

■  tion,  357.  ^ ^  , 

Austin,  Mrs.,  on  the  Cahfornia  pitcher- 
plant,  330. 

Bacon,  Lord,  view  of  Providence,  144. 
Baird,  Prof.,  on  variation  in  the  birds  of 

North  America,  244. 
Bartram,     WiUiam,    on     insectivorous 

plants,  305. 
Beech,  species  of,  now  extending  then: 

limits,  186.  . 

Bentham,  on  the  derivative  hypothesis, 

236,242.  ^^  ,      - 

Bible  does  not  determme  the  mode  oi 
creation,  131,  291;  a  mirror  of  Provi- 
dence, 142  ;  interpretation  of,  partly  a 
matter  of  probabihties,  261. 

Billiard-balls  illustrate  the  proof  of  de- 
sign, 62-64,  69-74,  77. 

Birds,  instinct  of,  171. 

Bladdcrwort,  insectivorous,  823. 

Boomerang,  illustrating  the  method  of 
proving  design,  72. 

Breeding,  thorough,  80 ;  tendency  of,  to 
reversion,  341;  close,  evil  effects  of, 
354.  ,     . 

British  flora,  discrepancy  of  vioavs  re- 
garding, 34. 


Broccoli,  origin  of.  111. 

Brongniart,  Adolpho,  on  distribution  of 
species  in  tertiary  iK'ri<itl,  114. 

Brown,  Kobert,  Bcieulific  sagacity  of; 
etc.,  2S4-2N9. 

Budding,  propagation  by,  relation  ot,  to 
deterioration  of  varictii-s,  341. 

Butler,  Bishop,  definition  of  natural, 
61, 160,  259.  269. 

Butterwort,  insectivorous,  325;  diges- 
tion of,  325. 

Cabbage,  origin  of.  111. 
California,  gigantic  trees  of,  207,  see  Se- 
quoia ;  general  characteristics  of  fiora 
ot;  208,  21b ;  unhke  that  of  the  Atlantic 
coast,  217. 
Canby,  observations  of,  on  sundew,  293, 

300,  322  ;  on  Sarracenia,  830. 
Catastrophes  in  geology,  120. 
Cattle,  origin  of  breeds  of.  111 ;  increase 
of,  in  South  America,  89,  117;  exist- 
ence sometimes  dependent  on  iusecta, 
41. 
Cauliflower,  origin  of.  111. 
Caulophyllum,  and  relatives,  dispersion 

of;  222. 
Cause,  eflUcient,  three  theistic  >aow3  oi; 

1 53-168. 
Cedar,  species  of,  188. 
Chair,  classification  of,  167. 
Chance,   not   admissible,  42.  55,  59,  68, 

76-S4,  147, 153,  108,  170,  23.%. 
China,  relation  of  flora  of,  to  that  of 

North  America,  214  sq. 
Classification,  ditference  of  opinion  upon, 
.34;  expresses  judgments,  not /<jc/w, 
85,122,  184,  203,  2^9;  expresses  only 
the  coarser  gradations,  126,  142 ;  *etf  • 
Species,  and  Gradation. 
Climate,  as  afl'octing  the  numbers  of  a 
species,  40  >  acts  indirectly,  41 ;  of  the 
north  in  cariy  periods,  114,  224. 
Climbing-plants,  331-337  ;  fcid  as  well  .i« 
grow,  332  ;  comparative  advantage  of 
their  habits,  334  ;  cause  of  motion,  \Wk 
Cobbe,  Frances  Power,  on  the  relation 

of  Qod  to  the  Universe,  234. 
Cohn,  Prof,  on  Utricularia,  824. 
Complexity  of  Nature,  41. 
Competition    sharpest    between    allied 

species,  42. 
Condor,  rate  of  increase,  89. 


392 


INDEX. 


ContingeBcy,     Darwiuian      hypothesis 

based  od,  52,  54,  76,  84,  86  ;*  mingled 

with  design,  274. 
Continuity  of  Nature,  123, 190,  284,  258, 

273,  2S9,  328,  331,  379. 
Creation,  thi-ee  views  of,  theistic,  158, 

357. 
Cretaceous  flora,  relation  of,  to  present 

flora,  233. 
Cross-bi-eeding,  essential    to    longevity 

and  vigor  of  species,  33,  346,  354. 
Curtis,  Rev.  Dr.,  M.  A.,  his  account  of 

Dionaea,  293. 
Cu\'ier,  on  the  part  animals  have  to  play 

in  nature,  356. 
Cypress,  the  bald,  relation  of,  to  Sequoia, 

213,  225,  230. 


Darwn,  Charles,  standing  as  a  naturalist, 
133,  283  sq.,  287,  297;  how  his  view  of 
species  differs  from  the  ordinary  views, 
13,16;  how  from  Agassiz's  view,  16, 
117,  129 ;  summary  of  arguments,  36, 
109-116;  his  distinctive  work,  37,  61, 
273, 308-309,  827,  337  ;  wKere  his  argu- 
ment weakest,  47.  169  ;  where  strong- 
est, 121 ;  his  candor,  169,  286;  harmo- 
nizes teleology  and  morphology,  52 
121,  234,  247,  288,  322,  337,  357,  375; 
does  not  deny  creative  Intervention, 
61,  93,  143,  149 ;  does  not  sneer  at  the 
doctrine  of  design,  139, 140 ;  never  de- 
pended exclusively  on  natm-al  selec- 
tion, 104;  view  of  instinct,  173;  no 
atheistical  intent,  258,  268^270,  274; 
experiments  with  Dionaea,  294,  321. 

Darwinism,  still  an  hvpothesis,  58  sq.^ 
119,  128, 135. 179,  274";  compatible  with 
atheism,  but  not  inconsistent  with 
theism,  54, 130, 159,  258,  279, 379 ;  more 
compatible  -with  theism  than  the  the- 
ory of  gravitation,  55,  235 ;  relation  to 
teleology,  57,  84-86,  121,  145,  151-152, 
176,  234,  247,  258,  271,  272,  283,  337, 
357;  premonitions  of,  88,  94,  238;  re- 
lations to  Lyell'a  geological  theories, 
1G3,  109, 110  ;  objections  to,  168-177  ; 
argument  for,  from  the  distribution  of 
the  species  of  the  oak,  190 ;  as  stated 
by  Wallace,  191 ;  present  attitude  of 
^  naturalists  to,  234,  236-251,  279 ;  im- 
plications of,  regarding  the  indefinite 
vitality  of  species,  848. 

Darwinian  Teleology,  accounts  for  abor- 
tive and  useless  organs,  371 ;  for  the 
apparent  waste  of  Nature,  376,  377 ;  for 
imperfections  and  failm-es,  378. 

Dawson,  on  derivation  of  species,  236, 
246. 

De  Candolle,  Alph.,  on  the  oak,  178; 
definition  of  species,  201,  202 ;  deriva- 
tion of  species,  186,  200,  236,  239;  on 
multiple  origin  of  species,  191,  239. 

De  Candolle,  conception  of  the  struggle 
for  existence,  37. 


Des  Hayes,  on  gradation  of  species  in 
the  tertiary  period,  49, 110. 

Design  versus  Necessity,  62-86;  distin- 
guished from  purpose,  358, 359  ;  how 
proved,  70-76,  84,  150-152,  16S,  301, 
362,  865,  371 ;  natural  selection  a 
substitute  for  it,  69 ;  can  never  be  de- 
monstrated, 70,  365 ;  method  of  proof 
illustrated  by  pump,  71 ;  by  boome- 
rang, 72  ;  by  movement  of  bilhard  balls, 
62-64,  69-74,77;  by  the  eye,  79-84; 
by  machinery,  85,  278  ;  may  act 
through  variation  and  natural  selec- 
tion, 148,  247,  272,  275,  288 ;  evidence 
of,  complete  in  the  individual,  151, 364, 
366 ;  all  Nature  a  manifested  design, 
152, 153. 176,  274,  337,  379 ;  manifest  in 
insectivorous  plants,  300,  301,  314, 322 ; 
in  climbing  plants.  335, 336  ;  consistent 
with  three  views  of  efficient  cause,  158 
ff,  272  ;  not  disproved  by  negative  in- 
stances, 369,  370,  380. 

Dionasa,  account  of,  291-295, 320 ;  digests 
animal  food,  019,  321. 

Diseases,  contagious,  relation  of,  to  nat- 
ural selection,  241. 

Divergence,  how  produced  by  nafural 
selection,  91. 

"  Division  of  labor  "  m  the  organic  world, 
48.91. 

Dogs,  of  diverse  origin,  27. 

Domestication,  effect  of,  upon  variation, 
26,  29,  32,  184,  839,  340. 

D'Orbigny,  on  destruction  of  species,  120. 

Drosera,  291,295-301,310;  sensitiveness 
of,  312,  317. 

Dubuque,  address  of  Professor  Gray  at, 
205. 

Effect,  as  result  of  complex  causes,  62-86. 

Elephant,  possible  rapidity  of  increase, 
38 ;  Falconer  on,  193-196. 

Embryology,  118.  "     , 

Equilibrium  of  natural  forces,  41,  42. 

Evolution  and  theology.  252-265. 

Evolutionary  hypotheses  should  be  the- 
istic, 176, -199,  279,  381,  889,  390. 

Evolutionary  teleology,  article  on,  359- 
390. 

Extinction  of  species,  not  by  cataclysms, 
41. 

Eye,  formation  of,  59,  60;  illustrating 
"design,  79-84. 

Falconer,  on  the  affinity  of  the  mammoth 
with  the  elephant,  and  the  bearing 
of  the  facts  on  Darwinism.  193-196. 

Fertilization  of  plants,  contrivances  for, 
346,  375-377. 

Final  causes,  see  Teleology. 

Flounder,  see  Pleuronecta. 

Flower,  Prof.,  on  the  derivative  hy- 
pothesis, 236,  243. 

Fly-trap,  see  Dionaea. 

Forbes,  Edward,  on  the  dispersion  of 
species,  191. 


INDEX, 


3*J3 


Fulmar  petrel,  the  remarkable  increase 

oi;3a. 

Gaston  de  Saporta,  Count,  on  the  orifjin 
of  tertiary  species,  I'JT,  I'JS. 

Genealogical  tree,  17. 

Genesis,  the  account  of  creation  in,  131, 
2G1,  2G.5. 

Genus,  dillicult  to' define,  184,  204 

Geology,  incompleteness  of  record,  48, 
IG'J,  263. 

Ginseng,  common  to  America  and  North- 
ern Asia,  222. 

Glacial  period,  as  accounting  for  the  dis- 
tribution of  species,  114, 115,  224 ;  effect 
of,  on  mammoth  and  elei)hant,  10;i-l'.)G. 

Glyptostrobus  of  China,  relation  to  Se- 
quoia, 214,  225,  230. 

God,  relation  of,  to  Nature,  51,  5S,  144- 
16S,  199,  234,  257,  275  ;  to  the  universe, 
59;  his  presence  required  in  a  long 
I)rocess  of  adaptation  as  well  as  in  a 
short  one,  60,.  149  sq.,  234,  256 ;  imma- 
nence in  Nature,  61,  159;  his  thoughts 
eternal,  yet  manifested  in  succession, 
167;  veracity  of,  in  the  works  of  Na- 
tm-e,  371. 

Gceppert  on  the  antiquity  of  Taxodium 
distichimi  and  other  plants,  228. 

Gradation,  fi-om  tertiary  species  down- 
ward, 34, 101,  114,  115,  200;  extent  of, 
in  fossils  of  consecutive  formations,  48  ; 
between  the  tertiary  and  the  present, 
49,  110,  112;  principle  of,  in  organic 
Nature,  123,  129 ;  between  plants  and 
animals,  124,  289,  803,  309,  323 ;  ungu- 
lata,  243 ;  towards  individuality,  125 ; 
coarser  in  systems  of  classification  than 
in  Nature,  126, 142,  1&4,  289 ;  in  climb- 
ing plants,  335 ;  in  insectivorous  plants, 
827 ;  of,  in  the  species  of  oak,  180,  2u3 ; 
between  the  cretaceous  and  tertiary 
formations,  197. 

Grady,  Mr.  B.  F.,  on  lure  in  Sarrace- 
nia,  803,  305. 

Greenland,  fossil  plants  of,  231, 

Grafting,  effect  on  longevity  of  a  species, 
341  ff. 

Grisebach,  Prof.,  on  geographical  distri- 
bution of  species,  229. 

Hayden,  on  fossil  Sequoia  in  the  Kocky 

Mountains.  228. 
Henslow,  KeT.  George,  on  evolution  and 

theology,  252,  256. 
Heer,  on  origin  of  species,  192;  on  the 

antiquity  of  Taxodium  and  other  spe- 
cies, 227  sg. 
Hobbes,  theory  of  society,  87,  89. 
Hodge,  Dr.  Oharles,  on  evolution  and 

theology,  253,  257-261 ;  on  Darwinism, 

269-283. 
Horses,  increase  of,  in  South  America, 

89, 117 ;  a  former  species  existed  in 

South  Amei-ica,  118. 


norscliol.  Sir  John,  on  the  relntiun  of 

God  to  Nature,  'J75, 
Hilaire,  (Jcoffroy  St.-,  ojipoHitiua  of,  to 

teleology,  350. 
Hooker,  Dr.  J.  D.,  on  Nepenthes  and 

S.arraceiii<i,  331. 
Hume,  on  proof. if  design  In  N:itur»',  8C3. 
Hybrids,  50 ;  how  to   U-at  Btc-riiity,  51 ; 

sterility  (if,  175. 
Hypothesis,  domain  of,  108, 119, 131,  132, 

250,  259,  260. 

Increase,  r.ato  of,  in  clephintp,  8S ;  among 
cattle  and  horses  in  South  America, 
39,  117,  118  ;  caiLses  affecting.  4<t. 

Individuality,  attained  gnulunlly,  125, 
343;  not  fully  attained  by  plants,  34^t. 

Inductive  science,  domain  of,  li,  9.1; 
hmitation  of,  47  ;  process  of,  23,  70 
sq.,  98, 101,  107,  IDS,  112,  2<»1,  202,  244, 
250 ;  Darwm's  method  conformable 
to,  37,  103,  111,  113,  114,  115,  119.  122, 
244,  260 ;  postulates  the  veracity  of 
Nature,  871. 

Inheritance,  more  mysterious  than  non- 
inheritance,  29;  the  only  known  caosu 
of  Ukeness  in  living  species,  227. 

Insects,  agency  of,  in  fertilization,  2->7. 

Insectivorous  plants,  2»9-303 ;  and  climb- 
ing, 308,  337. 

Instinct  of  animals,  171 ;  of  the  TalegaL 
171. 

Intelligence  of  the  higher  animals,  172- 
174. 

Intention,  see  Design. 

Interbreeding,  when  close,  diminishes 
vigor  and  fertility,  32,  2S7. 

Iv3%  Poison  (Rhus  Toxico(leiu{ron\ 
common  to  America  and  Japan,  221. 

Jackson's  "  Philosophy  of  Natural  The- 
ology,^' 36;3. 

Japan,  relation  of  flora  to  that  of  North 
Amei-ica,  215  sq.  ;  Grisebach  on,  226. 

Jussieu,  A.  L.,  definition  of  species,  16;}, 
201. 

Kale,  origin  of.  111. 

Kingsley,  Rev.  Charles,  on  "  Evolution 

and  Theology,"  299,  2S2. 
Knight,  Andrew,  on  effect  of  budding, 

841-343. 
Kohlrabi,  origin  of.  111. 

Lamarck,  his  theory  of  transmutation, 
28,52,  171. 

Le  Conte,  Prof  Joseph,  on  religion  and 
science,  252,  262. 

Leibnitz  charges  Ne\vton  with  subvert- 
ing natural  theologv,  137,  25><. 

Lesquereux,  on  fossif  SequoLa,  229,  232 ; 
on  the  relation  of  present  flora  to  that 
of  the  cretaceous  ago,  2;<8. 

Libocedrus,  distribution  of,  230. 


394 


INDEX. 


Lindley,  on  the  persistence  of  varieties, 
338. 

Linnaeus,  definition  of  species,  12,  201 ; 
diagnosis  of  the  three  kingdoms  of 
Nature,  308. 

Lyell,  Sir  Charles,  on  the  imperfection 
of  the  geological  record,  4S;  on  gra- 
dation of  species  in  later  formations, 
49,  110;  theory  of  geological  changes, 
103, 109 ;  acceptance  of  Dar^vinism,238. 

Macbride,  Dr.  James,  observations  on 
Sarracenia,  304. 

Machinery,  does  not  dispense  with  de- 
sign, 85. 

Malthus,  on  struggle  for  existence,  37, 89. 

Mammoth,  Falconer  on,  193-196. 

Man,  sei)aration  of,  from  the  quadru- 
mana,  50  ;  mental  power  of,  not 
necessarily  acquired,  59 ;  may  be  an 
exception  to  the  rule,  92,  93,  256; 
imity  of  origin,  99,  176  ;  antiquity  of, 
100. 

Materialism,  philosophy  of,  rejected,  126, 
158,  174 ;  note,  176,  28.5,  250. 

Melllchamp,  Dr.,  on  pitcher  plants,  329. 

Mill,  J.  S.,  on  creation  by  intelligence, 
861,  374. 

Morphology,  52,  121,  122;  reconciled 
with  teleology,"  121,  2S8. 

Mysteries,  of  natural  operations,  53, 158, 
317,  31S,  327;  of  Providence  and  Na- 
ture the  same,  153 ;  in  the  action  of 
sundew,  312,  317 ;  in  similarity  of  off- 
spring to  parents,  383;  proper  to  be 
inquired  into,  390. 

Nature,  definition  of,  61,  160,  259,  269, 
889 ;  theistic  views  of,  158-168,  249, 
257,390;  see  Continuity  of;  veracity 
of,  370. 

Natural  history,  province  of,  209,  260, 
268. 

Natural  selection,  34,  89 ;  method  of  op- 
eration, 44;  a  very  expansive  prin- 
ciple, 273;  supposed  recent  illustra- 
tions of  its  efi"ect,  45 ;  stiU  an  hypoth- 
esis, 54, 135,  274 ;  not  inconsistent  with 
natural  theology,  87  «(/.,  137  sg.,  255, 
272,  386;  how  it  produces  divergence, 
43,  91 ;  not  disproved  by  special  mirac- 
ulous exceptions,  93 ;  not  the  exclusive 
cause  of  modification,  104,  195,  337, 
386 ;  extent  of  operation,  104-109,  273 ; 
not  to  be  confounded  with  variation, 
195. 

Natural  theology  unshaken  by  physical 
science,  22.  53,  84,  89,  95, 137,  150, 151, 
152,  259,  337. 

Naudin,  Charles,  views  regarding  the 
evolution  of  species,  349  sq. 

Nectarine,  origin  of.  111. 

Necessity  versus  design,  62-86 ;  how  re- 
lated to  Darwinism,  69,  75. 

Nepenthes,  331. 


Nettle-sting,  an  example  of  the  natural 
production  of  a  complex  organ,  387. 

Newberry,  on  the  antiquity  of  Sequoia, 
280,  232. 

Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  charged  with  sub- 
verting natural  theology,  137,  258. 

North  America,  botany  of,  206 ;  former 
climate  of,  224;  birds  of,  244. 

Novelties,  difficult  to  accept,  87, 103, 247. 

Oak,  De  CandoUe  on,  178,  203 ;  Linnaeus 
on,  187;  as  illustrating  the  origin  of 
species,  179 ;  a  waning  genus,  186  ; 
dispersion  of  species,  188;  in  the  Ter- 
tiary deposits,  189 ;  waste  of  pollen  in, 

Objections  to  Darwinism,  philosophical, 
^  135;  absence  of  close  gradation,  47, 
63 ;  distance  of  man  from  quadru- 
mana,  50  ;  hybridism,  50,  51  ;  special- 
ization of  organs,  52  ;  novelty,  87, 103, 
245. 

Optimism,  absurdity  of,  141. 

Orchids,  fertilization  of,  287. 

Ostrich,  increase  of,  89. 

Owen,  Prof,  evolutionary  tendencies  of, 
68,  102(184, 136?)  238. 

Paley,  on  teleology,  52,  57, 

Pantheism,  55,  58. 

Paraguay,  relation  of  insects  to  cattle 
in.  41. 

Parsimony,  law  of,  360  (see  Continuity 
of  Nature). 

Peach,  origin'of,  111. 

Perfection,  relative,  141. 

Phyllotaxis,  law  of,  196. 

Pictet  on  Darwinism,  105, 108, 109, 112, 
127;  on  geological  time,  162. 

Pigeon,  kno%vn  extent  of  variation,  27; 
why  chosen  for  experiments,  28 ;  re- 
version of,  31. 

Pinguicula,  insectivorous,  325. 

Pitcher  Plant,  see  Sarracenia. 

Plants,  insectivorous  and  climbing,  289- 
303,  303-337. 

Pleuronecta,  facts  concerning,  372,  383. 

Presumption  against  novelties,  87,  131, 
132. 

Probability,  how  far  a  guide.  47, 107, 260; 
an  elenient  in  scriptural  interpreta- 
tion, 260. 

Progress  in  the  succession  of  organic 
beings,  115  sq..  118. 

Providence,  mysteries  of,  compared  with 
those  of  Nature,  58,  142,  177 ;  Lord 
Bacon's  view  of,  144. 

Pump,  as  illustrating  the  proof  of  de- 
sign, 71. 

Purpose,  see  Design ;  distinguished  from 
design,  359. 

Quercus,  see  Oak. 

Eape,  or  Colza,  origin  of^  111. 


INDEX, 


395 


liodwood,  of  California,  may  bo  disap- 

pearinjj,  212,  see  St^inoia. 
Relipion,  as  affected  by  Darwinism,  54, 

175,  176;  aud  Science,  by  Joseph  Lc 

Con te,  261. 
Eepreseutative  species,  definition  of,  220, 

226. 
Kesemblance    of    progeny    to    parent, 

cause  of,  inscrutable,  29. 
Eevelation  does  not  determine  the  mode 

of  creation,  181,  260,  261. 
Keversion  to  aboriginal  stock,  339,  341 ; 

takes  place  in  pigeons,  31 ;  reason  of, 

81;  not  proved  in  general,  31,  339. 
Eoth,  observations  of,  on  Drosera,  296, 

297. 
Eudlmentary  organs.  371. 
Eutabaga,  origin  of,  111. 

Sachs,  his  view  of  the  motion  of  climb- 
ing plants,  336. 

Saporta,  Count  Gaston  de,  on  origin  of 
tertiary  species,  197, 198. 

Sarracenia,  insectivorous  habits  of,  301, 
302,  32S. 

Science  does  not  concern  itself  with  pri- 
mary cause,  145,  259,  263,  26S. 

Scientific  spirit,  the,  95,  255,  259. 

Selection,  artificial,  30;  may  preserve  a 
variety  which  could  not  remain  in  a 
natural  state,  339;  methodical,  81; 
unconscious,  30;  natural,  34,  89,  90; 
probably  hinders,  135,  196,  337;  De 
Candolle's  estimate  of,  192;  Ileer's 
\iew  of,  192;  Falconer  on,  193-196; 
confounded  with  variation,  195,  3S9 ; 
relation  of,  to  contagious  diseases,  241 ; 
to  vaccination,  241 ;  compared  to  the 
rudder  of  a  ship,  886. 

Sequoia  and  its  historj'-,  205-235;  age 
of,  207,  213;  its  isolation,  208,  230; 
antiquity  of,  229,  238  ;  relations  to  the 
bald  cypress,  213,  225;  to  Glyptostro- 
bus,  214,  225;  to  tertiary  species,  214, 
228 ;  in  the  arctic  zone,  229 ;  to  creta- 
ceous species,  233. 

Sexual  reproduction,  meaning  of,  347. 

Sisley,  Mr.,  on  individuaUty  aud  longev- 
ity of  species,  344. 

South  America,  former  existence  of  the 
horse  in,  117.  * 

Species,  ordinary  view  of,  11,  16,  113, 
129,  163,  199,  200,  201 ;  Agassiz's  \\e\v 
of,  13-16,  117,  163,  164,  163,  191, 199  ; 
Darwin's  view  of,  18-16,117;  Dana's 
view  of,  11;  De  Candolle's  view  of, 
191,  201,  202;  Jussieu's  definition  of, 
163,  201 ;  Grisebach's  definition  of,  226; 
Linnaeus's  definition  of.  12,  163,  201; 
average  numbers  of  individuals  in,  39, 
40;  arranged  in  clusters,  97, 118;  com- 
munity of  origin,  how  inferred,  12,  35, 
111,  112,  113,  122,  182,  164,  183,  201, 
283,  255,  2fri;  distribution  of,  98,  118, 
191,  192,  200;  in  the  tertiary  period, 


114;  In  time,  IIS  238,  248 ;  fmnMnu- 
tjition  of,  how  to  bo  jirovcd,  23  ;  locul- 
Ization  of.  118,  114,  118,200;  connec- 
tion of,  illustrated  by  a  genealogical 
tree,  17  vq. ;  i)hy.sicul  connection  of, 
not  inconsistent  with  intiUertiial,  22, 
58,  54,  95,  181,  146,  147,  l.VJ,  160,  ifj, 

176,  284,  275,  27^  279.  857,  860,  8s5, 
889  ;  do  they  wear  out?  317  ;  difliculty 
of  defining,  90,  97,  111.  122,  126,  l4, 
244;  stability  and  [tersistency  of,  175, 
lfe5,  198,  888  «ry.,  848  ;  mode  of  origin 
necessarily  hviiothetii'^l,  129,  180,  131, 
166;  of  the  oak,  179  «v-,  -'03. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  philosopliy  of,  250. 
Spitzbergcn,  fossil  Sc(juoia  of,  2-."<,  229. 
Spontaneous    generation,    rejected    by 

Darwin,  98. 
St.   Clair,   George,  on   Darwinism  and 

Design,  269,  2h0. 
Sterihty  of  hybrids,  how  far  proved,  50 ; 

test  of  theories  regarding,  52. 
Struggle  for  existence,  87,   88.  41,   89, 

SS'i  ;  conceived  by  De  Candolle,  87. 
Sundew,  see  Drosera. 

Taxodium  (see  Cj-press). 

Teleology,  Paley  on,  52,  57;  of  Darwin- 
ism, 57,  84-86,  322,  874;  reconciled 
with  morphology,  121,  210,  2^^  357 ; 
denial  of  ordinary  doctrine  of,  not 
atheism.  18-^140,  l.M,  25s;  not  dis- 
turbed by  Darwinism,  145,  149,  151- 
15;3.  176,  247,  822,  887,  860,  871,  875; 
evolutionary,  article  on,  85f)-4^90 ;  old 
doctrine  of,  needs  reconstruction,  870, 
874,  380  ;  old  doctrine  of.  does  not  ac- 
count for  abortive  and  useless  organs, 
870 ;  nor  for  the  wastefulness  of  Na- 
ture, 872 ;  nor  for  imperfections  and 
failures,  87S.  •        . 

Tertiary  period,  gradation  of  species  in, 
34,  49,  101.  llii,  2<10;  distribution  of 
species  in,  112-115,  228-232  ;  no  hiatus 
between  the  cretaceous  and,  197,  19S, 
238. 

Theism,  as  affected  bv  Darwinism,  54, 
181,  176,  2:34,  285,  24S  252-265,  807, 
837,  879  ;  by  other  physical  theories, 
54-56  ;  by  "nebular  hypothesis,  187  ; 
Darwinism  compatible  with,  67, 144  «f/., 
151-157, 199, 249, 2frS,  379  ;  three  views 
of  Nature  compatible  with,  1 58-168, 

177.  275,  277. 

Theologians,  interest  of,  In  evolutionary 
hypothesis,  252  ;  attitude  toward,  258, 
254,  261 ;  deal  largely  in  probabihties, 
260. 

Time,  geological  evidence  of,  98-100, 162. 

Transmutation,  theories  of.  no  novelty, 
23  ;  Lamarck's  theorj'  of,  23 ;  of  tho 
"  Vestiges  of  Creation,"  24. 

Treat,  Mrs.,  of  New  Jersey,  observ.iUona 
on  simdew,  298  •  on  lltricularia,  824. 

Truth,  search  for,  laudable,  95. 


396 


INDEX. 


TuUoch,  Principal,  on  the  philosophy  of 

miracles,  199. 
Turnip,  origin  of,  111. 
Tyndall,  Prof.,  on  matter,  .390. 
Types,  prophetic  and  synthetic,  of  Agas- 

siz,  116. 

.  UngTilata,  affiliation  of,  243. 

Unity  of  the  human  race,  179. 

Universe,  relation  of  God  to,  57-59,  131, 
152,  167. 

Utricularla,  or  bladderwort,  insectivor- 
ous, 324. 

Variation,  cause  of,  unknown,  12,  76,  84, 
157, 158, 170, 196,  337,  3S5  ;  an  inherent 
tendency,  15,  96,  337,  386,  338;  of 
domestic  animals  not  exceptional,  26  ; 
extent  of,  undetermined,  27,  97,  111, 
118, 203 ;  eflfect  of  domestication  upon, 
26,  29,  203 ;  more  Ukely  than  inherit- 
ance to  be  explained,  29,  207 ;  not  in 
every  direction,  147,  387 ;  may  be  led 
along  beneficial  lines,  143  ;  among  wild 
fc;yecies,  174,  203 ;  in  the  oak,  181, 185, 


187 ;  in  the  birds  of  America,  244 ; 
compared  to  the  wind  Avhich  propels  a 
ship,  386. 

Varieties,  do  not  dififer  from  closely  re- 
lated species,  35,  90,  97,  111,  112,  123- 
126,  185,  200,  203 ;  less  definite  than 
species,  184;  do  they  wear  out?  333 
sq.,  345. 

Venus's  Fly-trap  {see  Dionaea). 

Vestiges  of  creation,  characterized,  24, 
237. 

"Wallace,  A.  R.,  formula  of,  concerning 
the  origin  of  species,  119,  191. 

Wastefuhiess  of  Nature,  89,  372-374; 
not  objectless,  375,  377  ;  of  pollen  in 
pine  and  oak  trees,  375 ;  in  mould  fun- 
gi, 377. 

Westminster  Review,  article  in,  on  de- 
sign in  Nature,  361  sq. 

Whewell,  on  divine  interposition  in  Na- 
ture, 259,  269. 

Winchell,  Alexander,  on  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  269,  281. 

Wind  carriage,  cheap,  377. 

Wyman,  Prof,  on  pitcher  plants,  329. 


THE   END. 


INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 


N  O  IV    R  E  A  D  Y. 

No.     1.  FORMS  OF  WATER,  in  Clouds,  Rain,  Rivers,  Ice,  and  Glaciers.  By 

Prof.  John  Tvnuali.,  LI,.  D.,  K.  K.  S.     i  vol.     Cloth.     I'ricc,  $1.50. 

No.     2.  PHYSICS  AND  POLITICS ;  or.  Thoughts  on  the  Application  of  the 

Principles  of  "  Natural  Selection  "  and  "  Inheritance  "  to  Political  Society. 

By  Walter  Bagehot,  Esq.,  author  of  "The  English  Constitution."     i 

\o\.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.50. 
No.     3.  FOODS.     By  Edwakd  Smith,  M.  D.,  LL.  B.,  F.  R.  S.      1  vol.     Cloth. 

Price,  $1.75. 
No.     4.  MIND   AND    BODY.     The   Theories  of  their  Relation.     By  Alex. 

Bain,  LL.  D.,  Piofessor  01   Logic  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen,     i  vol., 

i2mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.50. 

No.    5.  THE  STUDY  OP  SOCIOLOGY.     By  Herbert  Spencer.    Pilcc. 

$1.50. 
No.    6.  THE  NEW  CHEMISTRY.     By  Prof.  Josiah  P.  Cooke,  Jr.,  of  Har- 

yard  University,      i  vol.,  i2mo.      Cloth.     Price,  $2.00. 

No.  7.  THE  CONSERVATION  OF  ENERGY.  By  Prof.  Balfour 
Stewart,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     i  vol.,  i2mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $1.50. 

No.     8.  ANIMAL   LOCOMOTION ;    or.  Walking,  Swimming,  and   Flying, 

with  a  Dissertation  on  Aeronautics.  By  J.    I3ell  Pettigkew,  M.  U., 

F.R.  S.,  F.  R.  S.  E.,   F.  R.  C.  P.  E.  i  vol.,   i2mo.      Fully  illustrated. 

Price,  $1.75. 

No.  9.  RESPONSIBILITY  IN  MENTAL  DISEASE.  By  IIesky 
Maudsley,  INI.  D.     I  vol.,  i2mo.     Cloth.     Price,  4^1.50. 

No.  10.  THE  SCIENCE  OF  LAW.    By  Prof.  Sheldon  Amos,  i  vol.,  i2mo. 

Cloth.     Price,  $1.75. 

No.  11.  ANIMAL  MECHANISM.  A  Treatise  on  Terrestrial  and  Aerial 
Locomotion.     By  E.  J.  Marev.     With  117  Illustratif)ns.     Price,  $1.75. 

No.  12.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  .CONFLICT  BETWEEN  RE- 
LIGION AND  SCIENCE.  By  John  Wm.  Draper,  M.  D.,  LL.  D., 
author  of  "The  Intellectual  Development  of  Europe."     Price,  $1.75- 

No.  13.  THE  DOCTRINE   OF   DESCENT   AND   DARWINISM. 

By  Prof.  Oscar  Schmidt,  Stra^hu^g  Uni\ersity.     Price,  :fi.5o. 

No.  14.  THE  CHEMISTRY  OF  LIGHT  AND  PHOTOGRAPHY. 

In  its  Application  to  Art,  Science,  and  Industry.     By  Dr.  Her.man.n'  Vo- 
gel.     100  Illustrations.     Price,  $2.00. 
No.   15.  FUNGI;   their  Nature,   Influence,  and  Uses.     By  M    C.  Cooke,  M.  A., 
LL.  D.     Edited  by  Rev.   M.  J.   Berkeley,   M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.     With  109 
Illustrations.     Price,  $1.50. 

No.  16.  THE  LIFE  AND  GROWTH  OF  LANGUAGE.  By  Prof. 
W.  D.  Whitney,  of  Yale  College.     Price,  $1.50. 

No.  17.  MONEY  AND  THE  MECHANISM  OF  EXCHANGE. 

By  W.  Stanley  Jevons,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Logic  and  I'oliti- 
cal  Economy  in  the  Owens  College,  Manchester.     Price,  $1.75. 

No.  18.  THE  NATURE  OF  LIGHT,  with  a  General  Account  of  Physlc.il 
Optics.  By  Dr.  Eugene  Lommel,  Professor  of  Physics  in  the  University 
of  Erlangen.  With  188  Illustrations  and  a  Plate  of  Spectra  in  Chromo- 
lithography.     Price,  ?2.oo. 

No.  19.  ANIMAL  PARASITES  AND  MESSMATES.  By  Monsjeur 
Van  Beneden,  Professor  of  the  University  of  Loiivain,  Correspondent  of 
the  Institute  of  France.     With  83  Illustrations.     Price,  $1.50. 

No.  20.  ON  FERMENTATIONS.  By  P.  Schutzfnbekgfr,  Director  at  the 
Chemical  Laboratory  at  tlie  Sorbonne.    With  28  Illustrations.    Price,  $1.50. 

No.  21.  THE  FIVE  SENSES  OF  MAN.    {In  press.) 

D.  APPLETON  &.  CO.,  Publishers,  549  t^  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 


D.  Appleton  &  Co.  have  the  pleasure  of  announcing  that  they  have  made  arrange, 
nents  for  publishing,  and  have  recently  commenced  the  issue  of,  a  Series  of  Popu- 
lar MoNOGKAPHS,  or  small  works,  under  the  above  title,  which  will  embody  the  results 
of  lecent  inquiry  in  the  most  interesting  departments  of  advancing  science. 

The  character  and  scope  of  this  series  will  be  best  indicated  by  a  reference  to  the 
naiiies  and  subjects  included  in  the  subjoined  list,  from  which  it  v/ill  be  seen  that  the 
cooperation  of  the  most  distinguished  professors  in  England,  Germany,  France,  and  the 
United  States,  has  been  secured,  and  negotiations  are  pending  for  contributions  from 
other  eminent  scientific  writers. 

The  works  will  be  issued  in  New  York,  London,  Paris,  Leipsic,  Milan,  and  St. 
Petersburg. 

The  International  Scientific  Series  is  entirely  an  American  project,  and  was 
originated  and  organized  by  Dr.  E.  L.  Youmans,  who  has  spent  much  time  in  Europe, 
arranging  with  authors  and  publishers. 

FORTHCOMING   VOLUMES. 

Prof.  W.    KINGDON   CLIFFORD,    M.  A.     The  First  PrmdJ>ies  of  the  Exact 
Sciences  explained  to  the  Non-niec.the7naticaL 

Prof.  T.  H.  HUXLEY,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     Bodily  Motion  aiid  Consciousness. 

Dr.  W.  B.  CARPENTER,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     The  Physical  Geography  of  the  Sea. 

Prof.  WILLIAM  ODLING,  F.  R.  S      The  Old  Chemistry  -viewed  from  the  New 
StaJid-point. 

W.  LAUDER  LINDSAY,  M.D.,  F.  R.  S.  E.     Mind  in  the  Lower  Animals. 
Sir  JOHN  LUBBOCK,  Bart.,  F.  R.  S.     On  Ants  and  Bees. 

Prof.  W.  T.  THISELTON  DYER,  B.  A.,  B.  Sc.     Form  and  Habit  in  Flowering 
Plants. 

Mr.  J.  N.  LOCKYER,  F.  R.  S.     Spectrum  Analysis. 

Prof.  MICHAEL  FOSTER,  M.  D.     Protoplasm  and  the  Cell  Theory. 

H.  CHARLTON  BASTIAN,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     The  Brain  as  an  Organ  of  Mind. 

Prof.  A.  C.   RAMSAY,  LL.  D.,  F.  R.  S.     Earth  Sctdptia-c :  Hills,  Valleys,  Maun. 

tains,  Plains, -Rivers,  Lakes;   How  they  were  Produced,  and  how  they  havt 

been  Destroyed. 

Prof.  RUDOLPH  VIRCHOW  (Berlin  University-).     Morbid  Physiological  Action. 
Prof.  CLAUDE  BERNARD.     History  of  the  Theories  of  Life. 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  549  &  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFIC  SERIES. 


FORTHCOMING    VOL UMES. 

tio£  H,  SAINTE-CLAIRE  DEVILLE.     An  httruduction  to  Central  OutHutrj. 

Prof.  W  U  RTZ.     A  toms  and  the  A  tomic  Tlieo  ry. 

Pro£  De  QUATREFAGES.     The  Human  Race. 

Pro£  LACAZE-DUTHIERS.     Zoology  since  Cuvicr. 

Prof.  BERTHELOT.     Chemical  Synthesis. 

Prof:  C.  A.  YOUNG,  Ph.  D.  (of  Dartmouth  CoUcge).     The  Sun. 

Prof:  OGDEN  N.  ROOD  (Columbia  CoUege,  N.  Y.).     Modern  Chromatics  and  itx 
Relations  to  A  rt  and  Industry. 

Dr.  EUGENE  LOMMEL  (University  of  Erlangcn).     TJu  Nature  of  Li^ht. 

Prof.  J.  ROSENTHAL.     General  Physiology  of  Muscles  and  Nerves. 

Prof.  JAMES  D.  DANA,  M.  A.,  LL.  D.     On  CeJ>halization ;  or,  Hcad-^JiaracUri 

in  the  Gradation  and  Progress  of  Life. 
Prof  S.  W.  JOHNSON,  M.  A.     On  the  Nutrition  of  Plants. 
Prof  AUSTIN  FLINT,  Jr.,  M.  D.     The  Nervous  System,  and  its  Reuttion  to  ike 

Bodily  Functions. 
Prof.  BERNSTEIN  (University  of  Halle).     The  Fire  Senses  of  Man, 
Prof.  FERDINAND  COHN  (Breslau  University).      TJuillo^hytes  (Alga,  LUhttu 

Fungi). 
Prof.  HERiMANN  (University  of  Zurich).     Respiration. 

Prof.  LEUCKART  (University  of  Leipsic).     Outlines  of  Animal  Organizatiatu 
Prof.  LIEBREICH  (University  of  Berlin).     Outlines  of  Toxicology. 
Prof.  KUNDT  (University  of  Strasburg).     On  Sound. 
Prof.  REES  (University  of  Erlangen).     On  Parasitic  Plants. 

Prof  STEINTHAL  (University  of  Berlin).     Outlines  of  the  Science  of  Language. 
P.  BERT  (Professor  of  Physiology,  Paris).     Forms  of  Life  and  other  Cosmical  Cur- 

ditions. 
E.  ALGLAVE  (Professor  of  Constitutional  and  Administrative  Law  at  Douai,  and  ol 
Political  Economy  at  Lille).     TJie  Primitive  Elements  of  Political  Constitutians. 
P    LORAIN  (Professor  of  Medicine,  Paris).     Modern  Epidemics. 
Prof    SCHUTZENBERGER   (Director  of  the   Chemical  Laboratory  at  the   Sor- 

.bonne).     On  Fermentations. 
Mens.  FREIDEL.     The  Ftmctions  of  Organic  Chetnistry. 
Mens.  DEBRAY.     Predotis  Metals. 

Prof  CORFIELD,  M.  A.,  M.  D.  (Oxon.).     Air  in  its  Relation  to  Health. 
Prof.  A.  GIARD.     General  Embryology. 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  549  &  551  Broa4wav,  N.  Y. 


RECENT  PUBLICATIONS. 


I>lscases  of  Modern  Liife.    By  Dr.  B.  W.  Richardson,  F.  R.  S.    i  vol., 

i2ino.     Cloth.     $2.00. 

"  '  Diseases  of  Modem  Life '  is  a  work  which  throws  so  much  light  on  what  It  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  for  the  public  to  know,  that  it  deserves  to  be  thoroughly  and 
generally  read." — Graphic. 

'  The  literature  on  preventive  medicine  has  received  no  more  valuable  contribution 
than  this  admirably-written  treatise  by  one  of  the  most  accomplished  physicians  of 
Great  Britain,  who  has  concentrated  upon  his  task  a  great  amount  of  scientific  re- 
search and  clinical  experience.  No  book  that  we  have  ever  read  more  fully  merits 
the  attention  of  the  intelligent  public,  to  whom  it  is  addressed." — The  World. 

Comin'  Tliro'  tlie  Kye,     i  vol.,  8vo.     Paper  covers.     75  cents. 

"A  very  amusing  and  well-written  story.  The  history  of  the  youth  of  the  Adairs 
Is  extremely  amusing,  and  told  in  a  bright  and  witty  manner.  .  .  .  One  of  the  pleas- 
antest  novels  of  the  season." — Mortiing  Post. 

"  It  is  a  clever  novel,  never  dull,  and  the  story  never  hangs  fire." — Standard. 

Memoir  and  Correspondence  of  Caroline  Herscliel.  By  Mrs. 
John  Hersckel.     With  Portraits.     i2mo.     Cloth.     $1.75. 

"  The  unlimited  admiration  excited  by  the  noble,  heroic  virtues,  and  the  uncommon 
talents  of  the  subject  of  the  memoir,  is  overborne  by  the  intense  sympathy  felt  for  her 
long  life  of  unselfish  and  unregretted  devotion  to  others." — Chicago  Tribune. 

General  History  of  Greece,  from  the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Death  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great.    By  the  Rev.  George  W.  Cox.    i  vol.,  izmo.    Cloth.     $2.50. 

"  We  envy  those  schoolboys  and  undergraduates  who  will  make  their  first  ac- 
quaintance with  Greek  history  through  Mr.  Cox's  admirable  volume.  It  ought  to 
supersede  all  the  popular  Histories  of  Greece  which  have  gone  before  it." — The  Hour, 

"The  book  Is  worthy,  in  every  way,  of  the  author's  reputation.  ...  It  is  alto- 
gether a  most  Interesting  and  valuable  book." — Educational  Titties. 

A  Short  History  of  Natural  Science  and  of  the  Progress  of  Discovery 
from  the  Time  of  the  Greeks  to  the  Present  Day.  By  Arabella  B.  Buckley. 
With  Illustrations.     1  vol.,  i2mo.     $2.00. 

"  Miss  Buckley,  the  friend  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  and  for  many  years  the  secretary  of 
the  great  geologist,  in  this  volume  has  given  a  continuous,  methodical,  and  complete 
sketch  of  the  main  discoveries  of  science  from  the  time  of  Thales,  one  of  the  seven 
wise  men,  B.  c.  700,  down  to  the  present  day.  The  work  Is  unique  in  Its  way,  being 
the  first  attempt  ever  made  to  produce  a  brief  and  simple  history  of  science.  The  au- 
thor has  entirely  succeeded  In  her  labors,  evincing  judgment,  learning,  and  literary 
skill." — Episcopal  Register. 

A  Hand-Book.  of  Arcllitectural  Styles.  Translated  from  the  Ger- 
man by  W.  Cotlett-Sanders.     i  vol.,  8vo.     With  639  Illustrations.     $6.00. 

"  There  is  a  great  amount  of  information  in  the  book.  In  a  small  compass.  For  one 
who  simply  wishes  to  gain  a  full  knowledge  of  the  various  styles  of  architecture, 
written  in  a  clear  and  interesting  manner,  the  volume  has  not  its  equal  nor  rival  In  the 
English  language.  This  knowledge  will  be  facilitated  by  the  profuse  illustrations,  of 
which  there  are  not  less  than  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine,  nearly  all  handsome  spe- 
cimens of  engraving,  among  which  figure  a  large  number  of  famous  buildings,  ancient 
and  modern." — Evettitig  Mail. 

D.  APPLET  ON  6-  CO.,  549  6-  551  Broadway,  N.  K 


JUST     PUBLISH  ED 


Money  and  the  Mechanism  of  ExcJiangc, 

Vol.  XVII.  of  the  Intebnational  Scibntifio  SF.niEa.  By  W.  Stanley  Jevo.x s,  M.  A., 
F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Logic  and  Political  Economy  In  the  Owens  College,  Man- 
chester.   1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth.    Price,  |1.75. 

"  He  offers  us  what  a  clear-sighted,  cool-headed,  scientific  student  has  to  say  on  tho 
nature,  properties,  and  natural  laws  of  money,  without  regard  to  local  interests  or  na- 
tional bias.  His  work  is  popularly  written,  and  every  page  is  replete  with  solid  Instruc- 
tion of  a  kind  that  is  just  now  lamentably  needed  by  multitudes  of  bur  people  who  are 
victimized  by  the  grossest  fallacies." — Popular  Science  Monthly. 

"  If  Professor  Jevons's  book  is  read  as  extensively  as  It  deserves  to  be,  we  shall 
have  sounder  views  on  tho  use  and  abuse  of  money,  and  more  correct  ideaa  on  what  a- 
circulating  medium  really  means."— i?osto/i  Saturday  Evening  OazHle. 

"Prof.  Jevons  writes  in  a  sprightly  but  colorless  style,  without  trace  of  either 
prejudice  or  mannerism,  and  shows  no  commitment  to  any  theory.  Tho  time  is  not 
very  far  distant,  wo  hope,  when  legislators  will  cease  attempting  to  legislate  upon 
money  before  they  know  what  money  is,  and,  as  a  possible  help  toward  such  a  change, 
Prof.  Jevons  deserves  the  credit  of  having  made  a  useful  contribution  to  a  depart- 
ment of  study  long  too  much  neglected,  but  of  late  years,  we  are  gratified  to  say,  bo- 
coming  less  so:'— The  Financier,  New  York. 


Weights,  Measures,  and  Money,  of  alt  iVations. 

Compiled  by  F.  "W.  Clarke,  S.  B.,  Professor  of  Physics  and  Chemistry  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cincinnati.    Price,  $1.50. 

"This  work  will  be  found  very  useful  to  the  merchant,  economfst,  and  banker,  as 
the  arrangement  is  highly  convenient  for  reference,  and  in  a  form  and  classification 
never  before  presented  to  the  public.  It  also  contains  a  series  of  tables,  arranged  alpha- 
betically, showing  the  value  of  each  unit  as  given  both  in  the  English  and  the  metric 
standards.  The  metric  system  is  used  coextensively  with  the  ordinary  system,  and 
is  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  book. 

"The  contents,  among  other  things,  contain  the  following  useful  and  comprehen- 
sive tables,  viz. :  I.  Measures  of  Length,  in  both  tho  English  or  American  feet  or 
inches,  and  in  French  metres.  II.  Road-Measures  in  English  miles  and  French  kilo- 
metres. III.  Land-Measures.  IV.  Cubic  Measures.  V.  Liquid  Measures.  VI. 
Dry  Measures.  VII.  Weights,  and  finally  Money.  This  latter  table  is  one  of  tho  most 
useful  and  valuable  tables  probably  to  be  found,  giving  as  it  does  the  standards  ia 
dollars,  ii-ancs,  sterling,  and  marks,  and  alone  is  worth  the  cost  of  tho  book."— .V.  Y. 
Commercial  and  Financial  Chronicle. 

""We  commend  this  carefully-prepared  and  convenient  volume  to  all  persons  who' 
vrish  to  acquire  information  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats."— i?os^on  Globe. 

"The  work  necessary  to  the  production  of  this  Uttle  volumo  has  been  judiciouslj 
planned  and  skillfully  executed."— CAicag'O  Tribune. 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  549  &  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


Works  of  Charles  Darwin. 


JOURNAL  OF  RESEARCHES  into  the  Natural  History  and  Ge- 
ology of  the  Countries  visited  during  the  Voyage  of  H.  M.  S.  Beagle  round  the 
World,  under  the  command  of  Captain  Fitzroy,  R.  N.  i  vol.,  i2mo.  579  pages. 
Cloth,     Price,  $2.00, 

"  Darwin  was  nearly  five  years  on  board  tlie  Beagle.  A  keen  observer,  and  a  genu- 
ine philosopher,  he  has  brought  back  to  us  a  precious  freight  of  facts  and  truths.  The 
work  has  been  for  some  time  before  the  public,  and  has  won  a  high  place  among 
readers  of  every  class.  It  is  not  so  scientific  as  to  be  above  the  comprehension  of  in- 
telligent readers  who  are  not  scientific.  Some  facts  and  species,  new  even  to  the  sci- 
entific, are  brought  to  light.  Darwin's  transparent,  eloquent  style  richly  illuminates 
his  observations.  The  weightier  matters  to  which  he  alludes  are  interspersed  among 
more  familiar  observations,  such  as  would  naturally  be  made  by  a  traveler  passing 
through  new  and  wonderful  scenes.  It  is  an  instructive  and  interesting  book." — 
Northwestern  CJmstian  A  dvocate. 

THE   ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES  by  Means  of  Natural  Selection,  ox 
the  Preservation  of  Favored  Races  in  the  Struggle  for  Life.    New  and  revised  edi- 
■    tion,  with  Additions.     With  copious  Index,     i  vol.,  i2mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $2.00. 

"Personally  and  practically  exercised  in  zoology,  in  minute  anatomy,  in  geology, 
a  student  of  geographical  distribution,  not  in  maps  and  in  museums,  but  by  long  voy- 
ages and  laborious  collection ;  having  largely  advanced  each  of  these  branches  of  sci- 
ence, and  having  spent  many  years  in  gathering  and  sifting  materials  for  his  present 
work,  the  store  of  accurately-registered  facts  upon  which  the  author  of  the  'Origin  of 
Species'  is  able  to  draw  at  will,  is  prodigious." — Pt-qf.  T.  H.  Huxley. 

THE  DESCENT  OF  AfAN,  and  Selection  in  Relation  to  Sex. 
With  Illustrations.  New  edition,  revised  and  augmented.  Complete  in  one  vol- 
ume.   688  pages.     Price,  $3.00. 

"This  theory  is  now  indorsed  by  many  eminent  scientists,  who  at  first  combated 
it,  including  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  probably  the  most  learned  of  geologists,  and  even  by 
a  class  of  Christian  divines  like  Dr.  McCosh,  who  think  that  certain  theories  of  cos- 
mogony, like  the  nebular  hypothesis  and  the  law  of  evolution,  may  be  accepted  with- 
out doing  violence  to  faith." — Evening  Bulletin. 

THE    EXPRESSION    OF    THE    EMOTIONS    IN    MAN    AND 

the  Lower  Animals.     With  Photographic  and  other  Illustrations,    i  vol.,  thick 
i2mo.     Cloth.     Price,  $3.50. 

"Whatever  one  thinks  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  it  must  be  admitted  that  his  great 
powers  of  observation  are  as  conspicuous  as  ever  in- this  inquiry.  During  a  space  of 
more  than  thirty  years,  he  has,  with  exemplary  patience,  been  accumulating  informa- 
tion from  all  available  sources.  The  result  of  all  this  is  undoubtedly  the  collection  of  a 
mass  of  minute  and  trustworthy  information  which  must  possess  the  highest  value, 
whatever  may  be  the  conclusions  ultimately  deduced  from  it." — London  Times. 

INSECTIVpROUS  PLANTS.  With  Illustrations,  i  vol.,  i2mo. 
Cloth.     Price,  $2.00. 

"In  conclusion,  we  lay  this  book  down  with  increased  admiration  for  Mr.  Darwin 
as  a  discoverer  and  expositor  offacts,  and  with  great  satisfaction  at  the  increase  to  our 
knowledge  of  plant  physiology  given  us,  as  well  as  the  ample  promise  of  further  addi- 
tions as  the  direct  consequence  of  the  present  publication." — London  AthencEum. 

"  In  this  work  Mr.  Darwin's  patient  and  painstaking  methods  of  investigation  ap- 
pear to  the  best  possible  advantage.  It  is  impossible  to  read  it  without  enthusiastic 
admiration  for  the  ingenuity  which  he  displays  in  devising  tests  to  determine  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  plants,  the  peculiarities  of  which  he  is  studying,  and,  as  is  always 
the  case  with  him,  he  presents  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  language  so  lucid  that  he 
who  reads  simply  for  information  is  sure  to  be  attracted  and  charmed  quite  as  much  a? 
the  professional  student." — N.  Y.  Times. 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  549  &  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


INSECTIVOROUS    PLANTS. 

By  CHARLES  DARWIN,  F.  R.S.,  etc. 

WITH   ILLUSTRATIONS. 
1  vol.,   12mo.     Cloth Price,  $2.CXD. 


"  Mr.  Darwin's  book  may  be  held  up  as  a  model  of  what  a  treatise  should  be  that 
is  addressed  to  intelligent  readers,  a  majority  of  whom,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  have  no 
special  acquaintance  with  the  matter  under  consideration.  In  style  it  is  strongly 
marked  with  Darwinian  characteristics.  The  opening  passage,  indeed,  allowing  for 
difference  of  subject,  is  drawn  up  almost  precisely  in  the  same  way  as  that  which  ushers 
in  Chapter  I.  of  the  'Origin  of  Species.'  We  have  laid  before  us  the  circumstances 
that  led  the  author  to  pursue  his  researches  in  the  first  instance,  so  far  back  as  i860; 
then,  step  by  step,  we  are  treated  to  the  history  of  those  researches:  fact  is  added  to 
fact,  inference  to  inference,  till  at  length  the  body  of  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  be- 
comes so  overwhelming,  that  there  is  as  little  chance  of  controverting  Mr.  Darwin's 
conclusions  as  there  is  for  a  fly  to  escape  when  once  it  has  been  caught  in  the  cruel 
embrace  of  a  sun-dew.  The  modesty,  the  perfect  candor,  the  scrupulous  care  to  ac- 
knowledge the  labors  of  others,  even  in  the  most  trifling  particulars,  are  as  apparent  in 
this  as  in  the  rest  of  Mr.  Darwin's  books.  These  Darwinian  characteristics,  as  we 
venture  to  call  them,  are  only  equaled  by  the  apparendy  inexhaustible  patience  with 
which  he  has  pursued  his  observations  and  experiments  throughout  many  years." — 
London  A  thenceujn. 

"  In  this  work  Mr.  Darwin's  patient  and  painstaking  methods  of  investigation  ap- 
pear to  the  best  possible  advantage.  It  is  impossible  to  read  it  without  enthusiastic 
admiration  for  the  ingenuity  which  he  displays  in  devising  tests  to  determine  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  plants,  the  peculiarities  of  which  he  is  studying,  and,  as  is  always  the 
case  with  him,  he  presents  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  language  so  lucid  that  he  who 
reads  simply  for  information  is  sure  to  be  attracted  and  charmed  quite  as  much  as  the 
professional  student." — N.  V.  Times. 

"  As  a  model  of  scientific  inquiry,  his  work  will  scarcely  find  a  parallel  in  any  lan- 
guage. It  is  utterly  free  from  the  diffuse  verbiage  which  corrupts  the  style  of  so  many 
of  the  prominent  German  naturalists,  and  from  the  subtile  refinements  which  so  often 
throw  an  air  of  romance  around  the  physical  speculations  of  French  writers.  In  Eng- 
lish scientific  literature  it  has  no  superior  in  acuteness  of  thought,  candor  of  judgment, 
and  felicity  of  expression. 

"  Mr.  Darwin's  manner  is  equally  remote  from  the  vehemence  ot  the  polemic  aiid  the 
indifference  of  the  cold-blooded  observer.  His  pages  are  warm  with  deep  human  inter- 
est, but  an  interest  inspired  by  the  love  of  truth  and  knowledge,  not  by  personal  p.ission. 
His  anxious  endeavor  for  accurate  observation  is  evinced  in  every  line  of  his  writings, 
•and,  if  he  clings  to  theories  with  the  earnestness  of  a  discoverer,  he  clings  still  more  de- 
votedly to  the  facts  of  Nature  which  he  undertakes  to  interpret.  The  scope  of  his  ex- 
periments illustrates  the  rare  fertility  of  his  mind,  as  well  as  his  wonderful"  patience. 
The  thoroughness  of  their  execution  is  fully  equal  to  the  ingenuity  of  their  conception. 
No  detail  appears  to  escape  his  notice,  no  inadvertence  mars  the  harmony  of  his  state- 
ment, no  unwise  haste  disturbs  the  clearness  and  serenity  of  his  judgment,  and  even  if 
one  could  be  indifferent  to  his  volume  as  a  scientific  production,  it  must  still  be  admired 
as  a  masterpiece  of  intellectual  workmanship." — N.  V.  Tribune. 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  549  &  551  Broadway,  N.  Y. 


THE  POPULAR  SCIENCE  MONTHLY 

CONBTJCTED  BY 

E_     L_    "2- O TJ  JVC  .A.  n>T  S . 


This  periodical  was  started  {in  1872)  to  promote  the  diffusion  of  valuable  sci- 
entific knowledge,  in  a  readable  and  attractive  form,  among  all  classes 
of  the  community,  and  lias  thus  far  met  a  want  supplied  by 
no  other  magazine  in  the  United  States. 


Eight  volumes  have  now  appeared,  which  are  filled  with  instructive  and  interesting 
articles  and  abstracts  of  articles,  original,  selected,  translated,  and  illustrated,  from  the 
pens  of  the  leading  scientific  men  of  diff'erent  countries.  Accounts  of  important  scien- 
tific discoveries,  the  application  of  science  to  the  practical  arts,  and  the  latest  views  put 
forth  concerning  natural  phenomena,  have  been  given  by  savants  of  the  highest  au- 
thority. Prominent  attention  has  been  also  devoted  to  those  various  sciences  which 
help  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  nature  of  man,  to  the  bearings  of  science  upon 
the  questions  of  society  and  government,  to  scien,tific  education,  and  to  the  conflicts 
which  spring  from  the  progressive  nature  of  scientific  knowledge. 

The  Popjjlae  Science  Monthlt  has  long  since  ceased  to  be  an  experiment.  It 
has  passed  into  a  circulation  far  beyond  the  most  sanguine  hopes  at  first  entertained, 
and  the  cordial  and  intelligent  approval  which  it  has  everywhere  met,  shows  that  its 
close  and  instructive  discussions  have  been  well  appreciated  by  the  reading  portion  of 
the  American  people.  It  has  not  been  its  policy  to  make  boastful  promises  of  great 
things  to  be  done  in  the  future,  but  rather  to  appeal  to  what  it  has  already  accom- 
plished as  giving  It  a  claim  upon  popular  patronage.  But  no  pains  will  be  spared  to 
improve  it  and  make  it  stUl  more  worthy  of  hberal  support,  and  still  more  a  necessity 
to  the  cultivated  classes  of  the  country. 


The  PoptTLAR  Science  Monthly  is  published  in  a  large  octavo,  handsomely  printed 
on  clear  tj-pe,  and,  when  the  subjects  admit,  fully  illustrated.  Each  number  contains 
12i  pages. 

Terms :  S5  per  Annum,  or  Fifty  Cents  per  Number. 

Postage  free  to  all  Subscribers  in  the  United  States,  from,  January  1,  1875. 

A  new  volume  of  The  Populae  Science  Monthly  begins  with  the  numbers  for 
May  and  November  each  year.  Subscriptions  may  commence  irom  any  date.  Back 
numbers  supplied. 

JVoio  Ready,  Vols.  /.,  //.,  ///.,  IV.,  F-,  VI.,  VII.,  and  VIII,  of  the  Popular 
Science  Monthly,  embracing  the  numbers  from  1  to  48  (May,  1S72,  to  AprU,  IS76). 
8  vols.,  Svo.    Cloth,  $3.50  per  vol.    Half  Morocco,  $6.50  per  voL 

For  Sale,  Binding  Cases  for  Vols.  I,  II.,  Ill,  IV,  V,  VI.,  VII,  and  VIII., 

of  The  Popular  Science  Monthly.  These  covers  are  prepared  expressly  for  binding 
the  volumes  of  The  Popular  Science  Monthly  as  they  appear,  and  will  be  sent  to 
Subscribers  on  receipt  of  price.  Any  binder  can  attach  the  covers  at  a  trifling  expense. 
Price,-  50  cents  each. 

Address  D.  AfPLETON  &^  CO.,   Publishers, 

549  &  651  Broadway,  New  Tofk. 


^J) 


